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!

 

[pemerton]

Conan is pretty solidly good vs evil morality tales.

<snip>

There's no examination of humanity or ethical questions going on at all. It's not about modernism at all. We don't have any question whether or not the Set worshippers are somehow a force of anything but death and destruction. Conan overthrows the evil tyrant and becomes king. But, at no point is feudalism called into question.

In what way is Conan not pretty solidly a morality tale?

It's not about modernism - it's modernist. (And feudalism is called into question - part of why Conan is a popular king of Aquilonia is because he doesn't accept the force of feudal tradition, either in his own case or as a governing principle.)

It's modernist because all the in-fiction value comes from within the protagonist. Conan isn't an agent of providence, or playing out some fore-ordained requirements for human redemption (cf Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn; or the children and Aslan in Narnia; or even Ged in the Earthsea stories). He sees a situation, decides who he will help and who he will oppose, and acts on it. It's Nietzschean vitalism (and the main commentary we get from the author - from "outside" the fiction, as it were - is that "civilisation" stifles vitality and produces effete and ineffective human beings).

A story about seeing a situation and imposing your will on it perhaps counts as a morality tale in the American vernacular! (I'm only half-joking there.) But not to me. There is no external source of morality. No one gets his/her comeuppance, or his/her due, except as Conan wills it so.

And to change examples for a moment: Kubricks' 2001: A Space Odyssey is far more of a morality tale than any REH Conan story (what exactly the moral is I'll leave as an exercise for the reader, given the board rules about politics), but by any measure is a work of sci-fi and not fantasy. I think I would say the same about Blade Runner: a clear morality tale, in a sci-fi film.

(By morality tale do you mean not a story that exhibits a moral principle but a story where the goodies and baddies are easily identified? But in that case the Earthsea stories don't count as morality tales and so cease to be fantasy - very counterintuitive - while Minority Report is a morality tale and so ceases to be sci-fi - equally counterintuitive.)

The reason I like this differentiation is that it actually works. Focusing on tropes doesn't because the tropes are tropes of Speculative Fiction, and they appear in all sorts of Spec Fic. Is it a robot or a golem? Well, really, it doesn't matter all that much. What does matter though, is the different themes of the story which do (usually) differentiate fantasy from SF.

I agree that tropes on their own don't do a perfect job. But for the reason I've given I don't think your version works either - it fails to pick the radical difference of both internal and external aesthetic of (say) LotR vs REH's Conan.

That tropes don't do a perfect job doesn't mean that they do no job at all. What inclines us to call Star Wars sci fi? They talk about parsecs, and planets, and hyperdrives, and the like. That's tropes, and it pushes away from fantasy.

Is Star Wars nevertheless really fantasy because it involves magic, and princesses, and dark lords, etc? Certainly the absence of those tropes from 2001 is what helps make it clearly sci-fi. But in Star Wars they are present in combination with sci-fi tropes. I think I'm with [MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION] in doubting that really is going to help us here. Genres aren't natural kinds; at best they're shortcuts to help us engage in analysis and criticism of a work.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, I think we're missing each other's points here because I'm a bit lost.

2001 is ALL about what it means to be human. That's the whole point of HAL and a host of other elements. Blade Runner? That's the central theme. Is Dekker human or not? The entire premise of the movie is an examination of what it means to be human. The entire premise of Minority Report is what does free will mean in the face of future knowledge. It's not about morality, it's about ethics.

Conan stories are not about that. They are about the good guys (granted, a not so nice good guy) vs the bad guys. It's a morality tale in that the good guys win and the bad guys lose. It's pretty much straight up romance literature. With a lot more sweat and a lot less prose. There's no bigger questions being asked. There's no examination of what any of the tropes actually mean in relation to the characters. There's magic, but, it's purely a plot device. At no point do we have any sort of discussion as to the ramifications of multiple sentient beings co-existing. Snake people are there to be killed. Because snake people are bad.

IOW, Conan is all about morality because it never actually asks any ethical questions. What does the existence of undead mean? What are the societal ramifications of magic? None of this is questioned. It's just accepted. Because, the bigger theme is, Good vs Evil. We root for Conan because he's the Good Guy. Unquestionably the Good Guy. He even comes built in with a ready made code of conduct (rough and ready as it is) for dealing with stuff like women and whatnot. Plus the themes of the "Noble Savage" in the face of civilization. He's better than everyone at pretty much everything.

The reason that I don't worry about the aesthetics of, as you say, LotR and Conan is because thematically, they both fit fantasy rather well. They are both morality tales where the good guys (who may not be purely good, but are on the side of good) beat the bad guys who are obviously bad. Frodo never questions why they have to stop Sauron. Conan never questions why he has to stop Thoth-Amon. They're the bad guys. They need to be stopped. Roll the story.

SF asks different questions than Fantasy does. In fantasy, a golem is just an animated statue. In SF, a golem is Data.

 

[pemerton]

2001 is ALL about what it means to be human. That's the whole point of HAL and a host of other elements. Blade Runner? That's the central theme. Is Dekker human or not? The entire premise of the movie is an examination of what it means to be human. The entire premise of Minority Report is what does free will mean in the face of future knowledge. It's not about morality, it's about ethics.

You'll have to explain what you mean by this ethics/morality contrast.

I'm mostly used to seeing "ethics" and "morality" used interchangeably. To the extent that they're differentiated among contemporary moral philosophers, I would see ethics as an account of what it is to live well, and morality as an account of what duty to others requires.

Minority Report clearly takes free will as a theme; but so does Conan! (Conan's "barbaric" drive, in virtue of which he rejects the trappings of "civilised" tradition, is a manifestation of free will - as an example, consider the opening of Queen of the Black Coast, where he explains why he killed the guard and the judge.) For that matter, so does LotR, although it approaches it as an issue of conformity of human will to providence rather than right choice or free choice.

But 2001 clearly has moral elements: it's about violence and warfare; about lying, and Cold War political morality; about hope. And Minority Report has even clearer moral elements, about both the interpersonal and the institutional consequences of lying; as well as broader libertarian criticism (consonant with the reflections on free will) of overweening government programs.

Conan stories are not about that. They are about the good guys (granted, a not so nice good guy) vs the bad guys.

No. In themeatic terms, they're about the vitality of a barbarian contrasted with the degeneracy of civilisation. (And hence about what it means to be human, insofar as human being are social creatures, who hence have "tradition" and "civilisation" as an unavoidable aspect of their heritage.)

I mean, I could say that 2001 is just about a mad computer; or that Minority Report is just about an evil public official - but clearly that would miss some of the point. Treating REH's Conan as having no more thematic sophistication than a Justice League cartoon makes the same mistake.

Conan is all about morality because it never actually asks any ethical questions. What does the existence of undead mean? What are the societal ramifications of magic? None of this is questioned. It's just accepted.

Because they're just devices. Like the existence of Minas Tirith in LotR is just a device.

But the fact that Gollum destroys the ring is not just a device. The fact that Conan, a barbarian, restores Aquilonia to glory is not just a device. You seem to me to be coming very close to defining "fantasy" as shallow and "sci fi" as sophisticated. I think this is obviously wrong of LotR, wrong of REH's Conan, and even you must agree is wrong about the Earthsea stories. How does Tomb of Atuan (for instance) not ask questions about what it means to be part of a tradition (of religion, of gender, of government)? About freedom, both negative (freedom from constraint) and positive (enabling conditions that make one free to act in certain ways)? Etc.

But obviously it's fantasy and not sci-fi.

(You might think that the Tomb of Atuan's resolution of these questions is a bit weak or pat (and evidently so did Ursula Le Guin, given she went on to write Tehanu) but no more so than Minority Report in respect of its questions.)

 

[Hussar]

/snip

No. In themeatic terms, they're about the vitality of a barbarian contrasted with the degeneracy of civilisation. (And hence about what it means to be human, insofar as human being are social creatures, who hence have "tradition" and "civilisation" as an unavoidable aspect of their heritage.)

Fair enough. But, it's still classic good vs evil. Vitality vs degeneracy is just painting it with different colors. There's nothing about what it means to be human there. Conan is good because he is the barbarian and civilization is bad. There's no questions being asked here. Good is just good and evil is just evil. And they fight because good and evil fight. There's no question of doing it any other way or whether or not the fighting is even needed. Of course it's needed. Evil needs killing and Conan is there to do it.

I mean, I could say that 2001 is just about a mad computer; or that Minority Report is just about an evil public official - but clearly that would miss some of the point. Treating REH's Conan as having no more thematic sophistication than a Justice League cartoon makes the same mistake.

Actually, I'd say that's pretty close. Conan really doesn't have any more thematic sophistication than a Justice League cartoon.

Because they're just devices. Like the existence of Minas Tirith in LotR is just a device.

But the fact that Gollum destroys the ring is not just a device. The fact that Conan, a barbarian, restores Aquilonia to glory is not just a device. You seem to me to be coming very close to defining "fantasy" as shallow and "sci fi" as sophisticated. I think this is obviously wrong of LotR, wrong of REH's Conan, and even you must agree is wrong about the Earthsea stories. How does Tomb of Atuan (for instance) not ask questions about what it means to be part of a tradition (of religion, of gender, of government)? About freedom, both negative (freedom from constraint) and positive (enabling conditions that make one free to act in certain ways)? Etc.

But obviously it's fantasy and not sci-fi.

(You might think that the Tomb of Atuan's resolution of these questions is a bit weak or pat (and evidently so did Ursula Le Guin, given she went on to write Tehanu) but no more so than Minority Report in respect of its questions.)

Nope. It's not that one is shallow or sophisticated. Just that they ask different questions. The question of good vs evil is hardly an unsophisticated one. Although, to be honest, this insistence on using Conan as an example of sophistication is a bit off. These aren't exactly the most complex of stories after all. Fun and interesting, but, not exactly deep. LotR, OTOH, is a much deeper text with all sorts of nuance. Good grief, entire religions are based on the conflict between good and evil. I'd hardly call that an unsophisticated genre.

OTOH, SF always asks other questions. It's not, "What does it mean to be good" or "how should we combat evil", but, rather, what is the impact of X on humanity.

Compare the Jedi to the Bene Gesserit. The Jedi are pretty much space wizards who go around battling the Dark Side because the Dark Side is bad. Yes, there's more to it than that, but, at it's heart, it's all about what does being a "good" (light side) Jedi mean? The Bene Gesserit though, work to bring about the new Messiah. But, that's just the start of the story. The main themes after the Kawizatz Hadderach (sp) is brought about focuses on free will. What does free will mean in a universe where you have ultimate knowledge? The entire God Emperor of Dune book focuses on that one question. The actual plot is almost secondary. Heck, practically the first scene in Dune is Paul's painbox test where they are specifically testing him to see if he is human. Doesn't get more SF than that.

Note, just to be completely honest, I've never read Wizard of Earthsea, so, I cannot comment on it at all.

 

[pemerton]

Fair enough. But, it's still classic good vs evil. Vitality vs degeneracy is just painting it with different colors.

I don't agree. Nietzsche's most famous work is called Beyond Good and Evil.

The judge whom Conan has killed at the start of Queen of the Black Coast wasn't evil. The serpent that Conan kills in The God in the Bowl (? I think I've got the right title) isn't evil. Conan isn't defeating an evil civilisation. He's revitalising it!

Conan is good because he is the barbarian and civilization is bad. There's no questions being asked here. Good is just good and evil is just evil.

As I've said, I think this is a shallow reading of Conan. I'm personally not a big fan of Beyond the Black River, but the Picts in that story are the antagonists and not civilised. (One reason I'm not a big fan is that it's clearly a Western, but I don't think it counts as a Western under your criterion.)

And they fight because good and evil fight. There's no question of doing it any other way or whether or not the fighting is even needed. Of course it's needed. Evil needs killing and Conan is there to do it.

This isn't true even of most of the stories. Hour of the Dragon is a Conan-esque retelling of the grail quest. It also involves political machination, as does The Scarlet Citadel. People of the Black Circle begins with Conan capturing the Queen of Vindhya to try and ransom his men who have been taken prisoner - that's not fighting because good and evil fight.

SF always asks other questions. It's not, "What does it mean to be good" or "how should we combat evil", but, rather, what is the impact of X on humanity.

I don't see how these are necessarily different questions, but maybe that's a side issue.

Compare the Jedi to the Bene Gesserit. The Jedi are pretty much space wizards who go around battling the Dark Side because the Dark Side is bad. Yes, there's more to it than that, but, at it's heart, it's all about what does being a "good" (light side) Jedi mean? The Bene Gesserit though, work to bring about the new Messiah. But, that's just the start of the story. The main themes after the Kawizatz Hadderach (sp) is brought about focuses on free will. What does free will mean in a universe where you have ultimate knowledge? The entire God Emperor of Dune book focuses on that one question. The actual plot is almost secondary. Heck, practically the first scene in Dune is Paul's painbox test where they are specifically testing him to see if he is human. Doesn't get more SF than that.

By coincidence, I started reading Dune (the novel) yesterday after not having looked at it for over 30 years. (Back then I think I read the first three. Never read God Emperor.) So far it's not about What it means to be human anymore than LotR is. In fact I'm struck by how reactionary it is - at least as much as JRRT. And the Bene Gesserit seem to me no different from the trope of the "evil vizier" except with a slightly misogynist streak and sci-fi tropes involving breeding programs among noble houses.

I can't remember the nuances of the plot, but have a vague memory of the general unfolding. Fate and providence are clearly important themes, just as they are in LotR. Also related ideas of loyalty, kinship, etc. (Against as in LotR.) Nothing in what I've read or what I recall makes me think that Dune (the novel) is sci-fi in anything but its tropes.

EDIT: LotR isn't about what counts as good? or what counts as evil? That is taken for granted throughout the story - Sauron and Saruman and Wormtongue are all unequivocally evil. It is about (among other things) what causes people to succumb to evil. The most important answers it offers are despair and pride. It also asserts that these are linked - that pride leads to despair and hence evil, whereas humility/submission permits hope and hence good. The interesting antagonistic characters are not Sauron and Saruman but Smeagol/Gollum and Denethor; and in both these characters we see how an unwillingness to humbly submit leads to despair and hence evil.

Compared to modernist ideas (found in REH's Conan and much sci-fi) that's a reactionary reflection on the moral life - but it's undoubtedly a reflection on the place and role of humanity in the world.

And it's one that Dune echoes to a signficant degree! My memory is hazy for what I haven't re-read yet, but ideas of hope vs despair, and of submission vs pride, seem to me to loom pretty large. Even in the opening chapter we see Duke Leto is good in part because he submits to his reassignment to the planet Dune, whereas the Harkonnen Baron is evil because motivated by pride.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I don't agree. Nietzsche's most famous work is called Beyond Good and Evil.

A good point.

And it's one that Dune echoes to a signficant degree! My memory is hazy for what I haven't re-read yet, but ideas of hope vs despair, and of submission vs pride, seem to me to loom pretty large. Even in the opening chapter we see Duke Leto is good in part because he submits to his reassignment to the planet Dune, whereas the Harkonnen Baron is evil because motivated by pride.

Hmmm, I'm going to suggest that in no small part Dune isn't really about good vs evil at all. The Atreides are honorable, but I'm not sure they're good. Paul Atreides commits many atrocities later on in the first trilogy, or they are committed in his name, anyway. The Bene Gesserit pursue prescience to its conclusion in Paul, and find him beyond their control. The main themes are the issue of what the implications of prescience and what the importance of a resource that everybody needs (i.e., the Spice) is.

 

[pemerton]

I'm going to suggest that in no small part Dune isn't really about good vs evil at all. The Atreides are honorable, but I'm not sure they're good. Paul Atreides commits many atrocities later on in the first trilogy, or they are committed in his name, anyway

I'm still re-reading so at this point will have to take your word for it. But there's no reason why this couldn't be part of a fantasy story. Eg one which draws less on Arthurian tradition and more on (say) The Iliad.

The Bene Gesserit pursue prescience to its conclusion in Paul, and find him beyond their control. The main themes are the issue of what the implications of prescience and what the importance of a resource that everybody needs (i.e., the Spice) is.

Fortunes foretold, destinies known, etc are literary tropes as old as story-telling. Is the Bene Gesserit losing control of its own creation any different, at its core, from Wotan losing control of Siegfried in Wagner's Ring Cycle? Wagner acts deliberately because he wants to transcend his destiny - but that seems a difference between heroic-romantic and more tragic tone, than a fundamental difference in trope or object of study.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

I'm still re-reading so at this point will have to take your word for it. But there's no reason why this couldn't be part of a fantasy story. Eg one which draws less on Arthurian tradition and more on (say) The Iliad.

Fortunes foretold, destinies known, etc are literary tropes as old as story-telling. Is the Bene Gesserit losing control of its own creation any different, at its core, from Wotan losing control of Siegfried in Wagner's Ring Cycle? Wagner acts deliberately because he wants to transcend his destiny - but that seems a difference between heroic-romantic and more tragic tone, than a fundamental difference in trope or object of study.

Yes, I agree. I think we both agree that the genres aren't natural kinds but instead ideal types that anchor family resemblances. I definitely agree that Dune is more on the more tragic tone of things and it has a decidedly more pagan type of morality. The Baron Harkonnen is monstrous, of course, and perceived as such due to his rampant and excessive cruelty. The Atreides strength is that they are honorable and true to their retainers, but even so, they're one of the noble houses in a neo-feudal society. Even so, the Bene Geserit plot has its use for Harkonnen.

Unlike, say JRRT, I have no idea how much Dune represents Frank Herbert's own views as opposed to an idea he explores. Even with JRRT, some of his heroes are decidedly more pagan and dark, particularly in the First Age. Turin is a prime example.

 

[pemerton]

Unlike, say JRRT, I have no idea how much Dune represents Frank Herbert's own views as opposed to an idea he explores. Even with JRRT, some of his heroes are decidedly more pagan and dark, particularly in the First Age. Turin is a prime example.

I agree about Turin. He's something like JRRT's Achilles, Oedipus and Beowulf rolled into one package. He's to be admired in a certain way, but also there's a sense in which he gets what he deserves - or, rather, he ultimately could not have done better given that he refuses to submit his fate to providential will.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

First off, there's the problem with how we're trying to define genre. Some genres can be defined by trope - American Old West Westerns, for example, are generally defined by trope - guns, horses, cowboys, that sort of thing. It would be difficult to set a Western (not impossible, but, difficult) in 3rd century Rome. That's because, by and large, Westerns are defined by their tropes.

Murder Mystery is also largely defined by trope. You've got a murderer, a victim(s) and someone trying to unravel the mystery. Remove any of these three tropes and it's kinda uphill climbing to sell this as a murder mystery.

OTOH, fantasy and SF are not defined by tropes. Yes, tropes exist in the genre, but, they don't really define the genre. You can have lightsabers, as @lewpuls mentions, in both SF and Fantasy. And having dragons doesn't necessarily make a work fantasy - as in the Pern series by Anne McCaffery. No. Fantasy and SF are defined by theme, not trope.

The difference between SF and Fantasy is the difference between ethics and morality. SF is, by its themes, political. The central question of SF is "What does it mean to be human in the face of X?" Whether we're talking about Frankenstein or Spock or Wall-E, or Flowers for Algernon, that's the primary theme of virtually all SF.

Fantasy, OTOH, deals with morality. What does it mean to be good? What does it mean to be evil? And various shades of grey in between. So, we get Jedi, Sauron, and whatnot. Fantasy is based on the earlier morality tales of oral traditions and it shows through in modern fantasy.

Could you set Western on Mars? Mars looks a lot like some very dry places out west Some changes would have to be made to make the setting plausible yet still a Western.