My Changing Thoughts on Science Fantasy Games

[Voadam]

My point is that in-universe, none of that is considered magical. It's science. To me, that makes it science fiction.

That's fine, for me calling it scientifically explained psychic powers instead of magic does not change it from science fantasy. I expect in the Shadowrun universe they have scientific theories of how magic works and that does not change their magic from being fantasy to science fiction in my head. I expect even Ars Magica for 11th century mages have in-universe explanations of magic according to natural laws that I would consider scientific theories.

In universe it is all actually science just using different universe rules.

 

[aramis erak]

You're saying most people don't see Star Trek as science fiction? Seriously?

More people dislike Star Trek than like it, and of those who don't, the level of fantasy is the most common reason I've seen and/or heard. (And more people simply don't care about trek than like or dislike it.)

It's a common problem with many shows and games.

I like Star Trek - but it's got so much magic I can't see it as Science Fiction, especially in Discovery and SFA. And I do like SFA as a show... but it's way upped the magic levels. Not that the SFA ep107 intersystem gate was introduced in SFA - those actually were introduced in TNG 211 "Contagion" as Iconian tech.

And there has been magic masquerading as tech in Star Trek since the earliest main episodes... Charlie X. Charlie Evans' powers are pure magic. (It's the second aired episode. WNMHGB is first, and also has literal magic, as Dr Dehner and Commander Mitchel gain godlike powers.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

More people dislike Star Trek than like it, and of those who don't, the level of fantasy is the most common reason I've seen and/or heard. (And more people simply don't care about trek than like or dislike it.)

It's a common problem with many shows and games.

I like Star Trek - but it's got so much magic I can't see it as Science Fiction, especially in Discovery and SFA. And I do like SFA as a show... but it's way upped the magic levels. Not that the SFA ep107 intersystem gate was introduced in SFA - those actually were introduced in TNG 211 "Contagion" as Iconian tech.

And there has been magic masquerading as tech in Star Trek since the earliest main episodes... Charlie X. Charlie Evans' powers are pure magic. (It's the second aired episode. WNMHGB is first, and also has literal magic, as Dr Dehner and Commander Mitchel gain godlike powers.)

Where are you getting this frankly outrageous claim from? "More people dislike Star Trek than like it"? Please provide a shred of evidence to support any of your conclusions. You are welcome to feel however you like about Trek, and personally decide what genre you think it is, but you can only speak for yourself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

More people dislike Star Trek than like it, and of those who don't, the level of fantasy is the most common reason I've seen and/or heard. (And more people simply don't care about trek than like or dislike it.)

It's a common problem with many shows and games.

I like Star Trek - but it's got so much magic I can't see it as Science Fiction, especially in Discovery and SFA. And I do like SFA as a show... but it's way upped the magic levels. Not that the SFA ep107 intersystem gate was introduced in SFA - those actually were introduced in TNG 211 "Contagion" as Iconian tech.

And there has been magic masquerading as tech in Star Trek since the earliest main episodes... Charlie X. Charlie Evans' powers are pure magic. (It's the second aired episode. WNMHGB is first, and also has literal magic, as Dr Dehner and Commander Mitchel gain godlike powers.)

Again, what counts as science fiction to you?

 

[SkidAce]

As people keep reminding you, your preferences are not near the apparent median.

That it's presented as science doesn't make it any less magic when it violates the most fundamental tenets of physics as observed.

I look at it as not magic, and "violating the most fundamental tenets of physics as observed" as we understand them so far.

Now "functionally" and story wise I see your point...made up stuff that enables plot points and bridges gaps in story telling...i.e magic!

And of course there Clarke's Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic)

But, IMO, something being indistinguishable from something else doesn't make it the same thing.

 

[Staffan]

As people keep reminding you, your preferences are not near the apparent median.

That it's presented as science doesn't make it any less magic when it violates the most fundamental tenets of physics as observed.

I think there's a distinction between "soft science fiction" and "science fantasy". Soft SF still has the trappings of science fiction, with the conceit that we have figured out how to do things we don't know how to do today, while science fantasy is overtly supernatural. I mean, any definition of science fiction that doesn't include Asimov's Robot books or Foundation books needs some work.

And it's not uncommon for settings to have their feet in both soft SF and science fantasy. Star Wars, for example, has hyperdrives and actual AI, as well as magic.

 

[aramis erak]

Again, what counts as science fiction to you?

Based upon the SFWA definition of Hard SF from the 1950's as quoth by an author in an intro...
Hard SF: No more than 3 breaks from known physics.
Soft SF: 4+ breaks from known physics. I can't remember the upper end cited; ISTR it being either 6 or 10, but can't remember the specifics.


The standards of Space Opera: FTL, artificial gravity, and ultra-high ISP (if not reactionless) drives put almost all space opera right out of the running for hard SF, and much of it well past that.

The Andromeda Strain is excellent hard SF, and still holds up. Logan's Run, as well. The movie Apollo 13 - there were fictionalizations for dramatic needs, but remains hard SF based closely on reality. Iron Sky - in the soft end of SF. Banks' Culture series is on the soft SF side. The Martian is arguably hard Sci Fi, but definitely Sci-Fi. Silent Running is my favorite 70's Sci-Fi film. Ethan of Athos is a great bit of Sci Fi in an otherwise mostly space opera setting (the Vorkosiverse). Life Force. Destination Moon. Twilight: 2000 as well.

Just because it's not Sci-Fi doesn't make it bad. I've a deep love of the classics of Space Opera... Lensman, Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers (both the Buster Crabbe version and the Gil Gerard version), Flash Gordon (including the Buster Crabbe version), Alien, oBSG, Battle Beyond the Stars. Niven's Known Space and Niven & Pournelle's CoDoVerse.

I also like some techno-fantasy, such as The Trigan Empire. Krull was pretty fun, too. (just rewatched it.)

 

[Tonguez]

Absolutely it matters.

In the Star Trek RPG anyone can use the tech phasers and replicators and faster than light speed and such and we do not consider them magic users because they do so.

Only the psychic Vulcans can mind meld.

In Middle Earth only Maia can use magic, there are quite a few fantasies were 'Witch' is considered a species rather than a Vocation.

Then you have stories like Turtledoves "Case of the Toxic Spell Dump" or Heinleins Magic Inc where magic has been industrialised and is commonly used replacement for tech. Even Discworld has iconographs that contain tiny imps and can be used by anyone provided they feed the imp.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Based upon the SFWA definition of Hard SF from the 1950's as quoth by an author in an intro...
Hard SF: No more than 3 breaks from known physics.
Soft SF: 4+ breaks from known physics. I can't remember the upper end cited; ISTR it being either 6 or 10, but can't remember the specifics.


The standards of Space Opera: FTL, artificial gravity, and ultra-high ISP (if not reactionless) drives put almost all space opera right out of the running for hard SF, and much of it well past that.

The Andromeda Strain is excellent hard SF, and still holds up. Logan's Run, as well. The movie Apollo 13 - there were fictionalizations for dramatic needs, but remains hard SF based closely on reality. Iron Sky - in the soft end of SF. Banks' Culture series is on the soft SF side. The Martian is arguably hard Sci Fi, but definitely Sci-Fi. Silent Running is my favorite 70's Sci-Fi film. Ethan of Athos is a great bit of Sci Fi in an otherwise mostly space opera setting (the Vorkosiverse). Life Force. Destination Moon. Twilight: 2000 as well.

Just because it's not Sci-Fi doesn't make it bad. I've a deep love of the classics of Space Opera... Lensman, Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers (both the Buster Crabbe version and the Gil Gerard version), Flash Gordon (including the Buster Crabbe version), Alien, oBSG, Battle Beyond the Stars. Niven's Known Space and Niven & Pournelle's CoDoVerse.

I also like some techno-fantasy, such as The Trigan Empire. Krull was pretty fun, too. (just rewatched it.)

From my perspective, that is an uncomfortably narrow definition. We're not going to agree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In Middle Earth only Maia can use magic, there are quite a few fantasies were 'Witch' is considered a species rather than a Vocation.

Then you have stories like Turtledoves "Case of the Toxic Spell Dump" or Heinleins Magic Inc where magic has been industrialised and is commonly used replacement for tech. Even Discworld has iconographs that contain tiny imps and can be used by anyway provided they feed the imp.

Things traditional defined as magic being treated as technology definitely blurs the line. Heck, the way spellcasting is handled in D&D can be argued to operate like this.