Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9866899" data-attributes="member: 6779310">I'm one of those who objects to "science" in "science fantasy" as a label. Most of it is just fantasy in space, and some of it is just techno-fantasy.I also think a lot of Space Opera isn't Science Fiction, but overlaps Space Fantasy. (Star Wars.)The Fantasy in Space element of Starfinder was a turn-off for me... as were much of the rules. I love Star Wars (overlaps space fantasy and space opera, but not, to me, any science in sight).I love Star Trek (mostly in the middle of space opera, with a few episodes actually being introspective enough to be Science Fiction)...I love Old Battlestar Galactica, which is both Space Opera and, to an extent, dabbles in actual soft sci-fi (in those episodes where it examined the effects of life in the ships.I've never been fond of adding modern space ships and modern guns to a fantasy setting, tho' I didn't mind adding magic into Cyberpunk, as most CP is unrealistic tech, a magic unto itself.I like my fantasy limited to late renaissance european tech - printing press, wheel locks and flintlocks, but not steam power.In games, much space opera, including Traveller, has magic in its technology. (The Traveller maneuver drive is largely presented as reactionless, which breaks a number of physical elements, largely ignores relativity, has many breaks from known physics (Jump Drives, gravitics, practical small safe fusion¹, psionics, weak and strong force manipulation, ignores thermodynamics)...</blockquote>

Verification