Worlds of Design: Fantasy vs. Sci-Fi Part 1

This is a broader question than just RPGs but the same arguments apply. It’s important for RPG designers, for consistency and to avoid immersion-breaking, but it’s probably not important to players.

View attachment 102751
Sourced from Pixabay.​

After making some notes to try to answer this question for myself, I googled it, and I also asked for suggestions on Twitter.

It’s the kind of situation where most people will agree in most cases whether something is fantasy or science fiction, but there’s an awful lot of room to disagree or to bring in additional terms like “science fantasy”.

One googled source said, "Science fiction deals with scenarios and technology that are possible or may be possible based on science". That's an obvious differentiation, yet it doesn't actually work well. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." For example, most people would call Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius (The End of Time) stories fantasies, yet they are supposed to be using highly advanced scientific tools.

“Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again.” Ray Bradbury​

Perhaps the difference is that science can be explained and follows laws, and magic does not. Yet we have examples of magic systems that are well explained (on the surface at least), for example, the metals system in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn novels.

A lot of the "obvious" differences are semantic, that is, it just depends on what you call something. Are psionics scientific or are they magic? Is a wizard a scientist or a spellcaster? Is a light saber science or magic? Science is usually associated with mass production, magic with individuals and individual use, and nobody but Jedi and a few bad guys use light sabers. Another source: "Many would argue that Anne McCaffrey’s Pern series is science fiction despite the existence of dragons while others say the Star Wars films are clearly fantasy despite the space setting."

In the end, saying it's a difference between science and non-science, or between technology and magic, can fall afoul of semantics all too often.

Do we have to say that science fiction uses technology that we can extrapolate from today? No super advanced stuff? But then what about faster than light travel? Current science says it's not possible: does that mean any science fiction with faster than light travel is a fantasy?

A different way to pose science and magic is to say natural versus supernatural. Some people do not accept the supernatural as an explanation for anything, which leaves no room for gods or prophecies. But when we get to advanced technology versus magic, Clarke's dictum applies. Sufficiently-advanced aliens may look entirely supernatural, even godlike.

We can't really talk about the presence of magic versus scientific technology because it's often impossible to tell which is which.

Saying "Low-tech" is not enough to identify fantasy. There are fantasies where magic is used to achieve a higher level of "technology," in terms of devices to help humans flourish, than we have today. It's a matter of how the magic is used, not the fact that it's magic rather than science.

We could look at the culture of the world-setting to try to differentiate fantasy from science fiction. In SF, almost always there are lots of individual inventions that people use in everyday life, without even thinking about it. Telephones, automobiles, toilets, electric stoves, computers, washing machines, and so on. There will be analogs of those inventions in SF stories and games, usually posed as technology. But you can create a world that you call fantasy, that uses magic to provide all of those functions but calls it magic rather than technology.

Comics style superheroes are shown in something much like the real world (implying science fiction), but I'd call them fantasy, not SF. The Dresden Files (and other urban fantasies) are clearly fantasy, though sited in the real world.

It looks like science vs non-science is not sufficient, though natural vs supernatural is sometimes useful. Let's try other approaches next time.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

But more than any such definition, I think it has more to do with a feeling or tone. When you step into Earthsea or Middle-earth, you enter Fantasyland. When you open an Asimov or Brin book, you are in SF. A lot of this has to do with how the author frames the story and the language they use. Fantasy uses what Le Guin called "the language of the night," which evokes misty otherworlds of myth and sorcery

I think this is a pretty good distinction. There are a number of works that mess with the boundary, too. The late Jo Clayton's Skeen trilogy is an example. It starts out as spaceships type sci-fi but fairly quickly ends in a quasi-medieval world with shape changers and other much more fantasy elements. Or there are fantasy novels with sci-fi elements, such as the late Brian Daley's Coramonde duology. It's a fantasy story but there are extra-dimensional travelers who end up in fantasyland via what appears to be a sci-fi method, meaning it has a planetary romance aspect. Gene Wolfe's New Sun is yet another example.

(This is why, in my opinion, most fantasy is trash, because it isn't sufficiently "fantasy enough").

As opposed to simply having crummy plots, bad characters, and turgid prose?

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

We can also ask whether the ethos of a work is essentially modernist (Star Trek) which can verge on the nihilistic (some strands of REH's Conan), or romantic (Star Wars) which can verge into the reactionary (LotR).

That's an important point, though I'm not sure I agree LotR is reactionary. You did say "verge into" so I get that.

What it is in many ways is complicated.

It's definitely got some deeply conservative and/or nostalgic "Little England" elements and "the Scouring of the Shire" does have an unnecessary dig at Britain of the 1940s and 1950s. It's deeply Christian in many important ways and has an important discussion on the nature of freedom, power, and evil. One thing JRRT is pretty clear on is that what he refers to as the "Free Peoples"---those created by Eru and in accordance with the Music of Creation---can be tempted and fall into evil. Sauron and Saruman both fall, primarily due to their excessive love of order for Sauron and rationalization for Saruman. The destruction of the Ring only comes through the restraint by the powerful, most notably Gandalf and Galadriel, and the mercy that Bilbo and Frodo showed towards Gollum. In the end Frodo fails at the Crack of Doom and succumbs to the Ring. Ultimately, the Ring is destroyed because Gollum takes it, getting what he wants most. This would not have happened had Frodo in general, treated Gollum in a humane and merciful fashion. One can dislike Tolkien's Catholic traditionalism, but his discussion of the nature of evil and of power is more subtle than critics often say and the messaging that Frodo brings really doesn't feel like, say, blood and iron ethnonationalism or any of the other elements of, say, Umberto Eco's excellent Ur-Fascism, which alas seems paywalled but is excerpted here.

Yes I have read Epic Pooh, including the updated version. I get what Michael Moorcock is saying and I understand that much of his issue has to do with his views on British politics---Moorcock being a strident atheist and socialist and Tolkien being a devout traditionalist Catholic, and, I presume a Tory---but in many respects I think he doth protest too much in spots and also misses the point in others. Nevertheless, I do think Epic Pooh is worth reading for people who don't recognize the larger issues and overly romanticize Middle Earth.

 

[Brightmane]

Science fiction and fantasy go hand in hand and often get lumped together. Frankenstein is considered science fiction, even though aspects of it fit fantasy and horror.

 

[Ratskinner]

Sci-fi: unreal stuff that has explanations.
Sci-fa: unreal stuff that has one explanation, "it's magic."

In a none-too-recent discussion of the topic at hand, a friend of mine described fantasy as "the religious version of Sci-Fi" for just this reason.

For me, the difference (at least for what I consider "good" versions of either) comes down to how the non-mundane "tech" of the world impacts the heroes. Whatever the ostensible source, good fantasy tends to handwave how things work and obvious impacts on society because its more focused on fuzzy wish-y adventure-y things, while good sci-fi examines those impacts possibly through adventure.

So, we can take the topic to be genetic engineering: a good sci-fi premise might be the squabbling between different sects on the moral uses of such a tech and the "unforeseen" consequences it has on the personal lives of the characters while a good fantasy premise might be our hero saves the world from horrible tiger-man soldiers.

I think its also part of the reason that its hard to make a really good sci-fi (especially Trek) game. The players having an argument in-character about the morals or possibilities of genetic engineering just doesn't benefit as much from rpg-style mechanics as the adventure-y fantasy does.

I do realize that my standard will "flip" many materials out of their commonly assigned genres, but so be it. (I mean, how important is that anyway?)

 

[MarkB]

To me, tone is an important aspect. Science fiction, at it's core, is taking a fictional element or elements and asking "what would a world that includes this element be like?"

Fantasy doesn't tend to use its setting to explore such "what if?" questions, instead using it more to create unique situations and fictional placements for its characters. The question it tends to ask is "what is the right thing to do in this situation?"

These approaches, more than the plausibility of a setting's trappings, are what will make it 'feel' more like science fiction or fantasy to me.

 

[pemerton]

Yes I have read Epic Pooh

I've read Epic Pooh, but see it to a significant extent as a mostly literary attack. It's interesting, but then I also enjoy Pooh so there's only a limited extent to which I agree with Moorcock.

The reason I say that LotR is reactionary, or verging on it, is because of the combination of the theological account of evil and providence with the account of social relations. (One could say it has almost no account of social relations. That would probably be fair, but wouldn't be evidence against it being reactionary!)

the messaging that Frodo brings really doesn't feel like, say, blood and iron ethnonationalism or any of the other elements of, say, Umberto Eco's excellent Ur-Fascism

I don't think LotR is fascist.

Also, for completeness, I take it as given that a work can be Catholic, even very Catholic, but not at all reactionary. Graham Greene is a prominent example.

EDIT for clarity: some people may assume that describing LotR as verging on reactionary is a criticism. It's not intended as such. I've only read a handful of fantasy authors, and the only ones I reread (and who I assume influence my approach to FRPGing) are JRRT, REH, Ursula Le Guin and Chris Claremont (his run on the X-Men). Also occasionally HPL, but I find him nearly unreadable.

 

[dwayne]

It is easy to do science fiction with the 5th edition system much like the d20 before. Take a magic item and give it a science description drop the magic( spells become programs or psionic abilities. A helmet of invisibility becomes a energy powered device that cloaks the person is a refection field that wraps light around the person. I wish wizards would release some official material for a modern and sci fi settings.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I've read Epic Pooh, but see it to a significant extent as a mostly literary attack. It's interesting, but then I also enjoy Pooh so there's only a limited extent to which I agree with Moorcock.

I think Moorcock makes some important points but you're right, a lot of it is is "I'm the new guy in this world... get out, old man!"

The reason I say that LotR is reactionary, or verging on it, is because of the combination of the theological account of evil and providence with the account of social relations. (One could say it has almost no account of social relations. That would probably be fair, but wouldn't be evidence against it being reactionary!)

It's a deeply theological book. I know I puzzled for a long time on the "gift" of mortality given to humanity and then one day said to myself "well it's pretty simple, really, when humans die they go to Eru faster. Elves need to wait until the end of the world."

But you're right, Tolkien pays almost no attention to a number of topics, especially in LotR. For as much as people hail his world building, there are parts of his world that make little or no sense or are simply undeveloped.

Tolkien is a very complicated writer in many ways. For example, the tale of Luthien and Beren is, in terms of gender relations, downright progressive, especially for his time. Luthien isn't the passive princess to be saved and she chooses her own fate, very much against her father's wishes.

I don't think LotR is fascist.

Ah, it's certainly been accused of being such.

Also, for completeness, I take it as given that a work can be Catholic, even very Catholic, but not at all reactionary. Graham Greene is a prominent example.

EDIT for clarity: some people may assume that describing LotR as verging on reactionary is a criticism. It's not intended as such. I've only read a handful of fantasy authors, and the only ones I reread (and who I assume influence my approach to FRPGing) are JRRT, REH, Ursula Le Guin and Chris Claremont (his run on the X-Men). Also occasionally HPL, but I find him nearly unreadable.

Got it. I've not read Graham Greene so I can't say.

HPL is nigh-unreadable to me now. I remember when I was a teenager really enjoying it. I can read past some of the racism as being a product of the time, but his is excessive in many spots and, even if it wasn't, the writing is... bad. JRRT's writing isn't all that great, either. There are spots where it's downright rough and he unnecessarily breaks the fourth wall or slips into lecturing, for instance, but he has important and relevant things to say.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I think its also part of the reason that its hard to make a really good sci-fi (especially Trek) game. The players having an argument in-character about the morals or possibilities of genetic engineering just doesn't benefit as much from rpg-style mechanics as the adventure-y fantasy does.

I think Star Trek Adventures by Modiphius does a pretty good job. I'm not really a huge Trek fan but there are several things the game does very well. First of all the PCs are assumed to be quite competent, being experienced Starfleet crew. There is minimal character advancement in terms of power. Second, the adventures I've played are structured in a much more episodic fashion and often end in an ambiguous fashion. For example, one adventure I played we were tasked to check out a neutron star on the edge of Federation space. We found an alien sleeper ship that was having power problems. It wasn't warp-capable so we ended up having to deal with the Prime Directive issues. Eventually we restarted the ship drive and left it on its way. That's a very Trek-like adventure compared to, say, D&D. The threat/momentum mechanic at the core of 2D20 reads weirdly but turns out to play very well in terms of simulating the ebb and flow of a TV drama or short story.

Unfortunately the STA book is not written in a way that really helps lay out the rules but if you check out the free quickstart it's pretty good.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

I like to have fantasy and science fiction come together like oil and water, that is they don't blend like Starfinder. If you have magic based technology, the whole thing is fantasy. There is an adjective I like to use when describing such a setting, I call it "scientifical". Its a made up word, the way I define it is as something that looks like science fiction but really isn't. For instance you have a robot that is actually a golem with blinking lights. You can have a blaster pistol that is actually a wand of magic missiles that is activated when the trigger is pulled.