"Do you know the difference between fantasy and sci-fi?" Topic

When it comes to miniature wargaming, can you tell which games are fantasy and which games are science fiction?

By my definition? Yes. By the game-runners definition? Who knows.

Depends on whether a player is in a state of psychosis.

Of course I know the difference. Not sharing though.

By the old standard, sure: Fantasy can't happen, or didn't. SF can but hasn't yet. But guess where that puts steampunk and VSF? And as Rich says, the guy running the game may have no more idea of the definitions than Margaret Atwood.

YES!

No.

Fantasy has swords the size of a surf board.
Sci-fi has guns the size of a truck axle.
So, yes…

Yes, and for some reason both feature women with lots of exposure to the elements.

goragrad: fascinating point! One must take another gander at this.

Robert A. Heinein was once asked the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy. He responded by saying let's assume there's a little green man hiding under a mushroom. If you call him a Martian, it's Science Fiction. If you call him a Leprechaun, it's Fantasy.

Good def, Robert Burke.

Once read it was magic.

There is no difference.
Vader is a wizard and the Knights use magic swords.

Scifi is set in the future.

There's usually a lot of crossover in my games anyway.

Weasel

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away……..". :-)

Cheers Andy

You know, it's very trendy to say they are "the same" … and maybe I'm not as clever as all the hip folks making these quips… but they sure look like completely effing different genres to me.

And to be completely clear, Fantasy is nearly always at a pseudo-medieval technology level, typically with magic that is intentionally incomprehensible and impossible in scientific terms.

Sci-fi is nearly always at a tech-level advanced of ours, and while there may be lots of handwavium, the author's intention is usually that it is due to technology that could, some day, exist. Yes, the Force probably falls into the magic category. But the rest of Star Wars is utterly scifi. Sorry. And Star Wars is a bit unusual for sci fi, when you think about it.

Scifi is set in the future.

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….." ;-)
OK Weasel, i know what you mean.
It used to be fairly simple in that fantasy was fiction set in times where technology was less advanced than we have today (swords,chariots,muskets etc.), and sci-fi was fiction using technology more advanced than the present (space travel,laser weapons, teleporters, etc.).
VSF/steampunk, dieselpunk etc. have made it more complicated as they contain more and less advanced technology at the same time (space travel + swords and muskets). This is probably the reason why they are often refered to as science fantasy.

'SF can but hasn't yet.'

Is a good try, but some of the staples (such as FTL drives) are considered by science to be impossible…

I would prefer to say one depends on fictional fantasy/magic/supernatural, one depends on fictional science.

GarrisonMiniatures 18 Oct 2016 10:49 p.m. PST:

Is a good try, but some of the staples (such as FTL drives) are considered by science to be impossible

Or perhaps not. link

Anyway, generally speaking the jury is still out insofar that there are examples of things that can't comfortable be pigeonholed into either category and in any case, it's partially a marketing problem anyway. Here are some attempts at demarcation, mostly applicable to literature:
link
link
link

In games, the demarcation problem does exist mainly in the literature part, or "fluff" as it is more aptly called oftentimes: at the abstraction level given, it is often immaterial if a given character is called "a wizard" or "a hacker" or if your troops get killed by "smart missiles" or "magic fireballs".

All that said, usually I find the best way to distinguish between different genres is to just say: "Science fiction is what I'm thinking of when I say 'that's science fiction'". Replace SF with fantasy and you're good to go.

Yes

Yes, easy:

Star Trek is SF

Star Wars is Fantasy

:-)

Mike

> Star Trek is SF

Somebody once said Star Trek is Fantasy, especially the new stuff. Technobabble was really magical incantations…

:-)

"Space fantasy" isn't a bad term for star wars.

Ray Bradbury – "Science fiction is really sociological studies of the future, things that the writer believes are going to happen by putting two and two together . . . Science fiction is a logical or mathematical projection of the future."

I'll add that just because there is overlap, doesn't mean the genres are identical or inseparable . Further, there are pure examples in each category that keep the two terms useful for discussion and maybe more important, marketing purposes.

This is useful: link

Yes. In fantasy, the gals wear chainmail bikinis and tiny thongs. In Sci-Fi, the gals wear Kevlarish bikinis and tiny thongs. And in general, if she has a fur cape it is probably fantasy.

With broad concepts, you can't have well-formed boundaries, but for me, generally, Science Fiction uses proposed technology to pit man against himself and his own ambitions and fantasy uses magic to pit man against an inhospitable environment. Of course, there's bleed over, and any good fiction would contain elements of both, with one being major and the other being supplemental.

Can I tell the difference? Yes.

I can also tell the difference between chocolate and peanut butter, but that doesn't mean I don't like them together in the same dessert.

Sure do know the difference. If it is a ray gun then it is sci-fi, if it a flaming magic sword it is fantasy!

Lost in Space = Fantasy

Star Trek = Sci-fi

The Martian = SF

Yes

The fact that one is 'fantasy' and the other contains the word 'fiction' is all you need to know.

as Sheldon says '' bazinga '' …

If science fiction deals with technology while fantasy deals with magic, then there is no distinction since "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Fantasy and SF exist in a larger category called Speculative Fiction. Both in fact occupy the same niche, and it is a sliding scale with SF on one end and Fantasy on the other extreme. What separates them is the number of exceptions from reality (that is, things that are impossible based on current understanding of reality) that they include. FREX Hard SF usually has no or perhaps one or two exceptions from reality. Space Opera usually has several exceptions. While fantasy has numerous exceptions.

Of course this can also be circular. I always wanted to run a fantasy campaign where the end goal is that the players find out they are post-humans in a nanite infested world that allows things like fireballs or flying dragons…

Damon.

Is it time to bring up Zardoz?

Two things. One, it is never a good time to bring up Zardoz!

Two, we should also remember Arthur C. Clark's famous saying, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Like Coelacanth, I differentiate Science Fiction from "Sci-Fi",a term with a rather tortured history:

link

When I was coming up, "Sci-Fi" immediately marked the person who used it as a Non-Fan. As the article indicates, that's becoming blurred. Still useful though, for mashups like Star Wars and most film/TV "Skiffy".

As for SF vs. Fantasy,sometimes that's hard to tell too. Is Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy? Certainly seems like it,until becomes apparent(on my reading,anyway) that the setting is post-apocalyptic, but the fall was of a highly advanced civilization. Does that make it SF? Maybe.

Of course, the OP is about miniature games, not media. I'd guess most of the games not presented as fantasy fall into the "Skiffy" category.

Yes

Generally, in "fantasy" games the "magic" doesn't have defined laws. What may work one time might not work 3 seconds later.

While in "Science Fiction" games the "technology" has defined laws and works repeatedly.

Quotes used because of Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (and we shouldn't forget the contrapositive: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced")

Things get a little weird in settings like Exalted, where the "magic" has very well defined laws and works pretty much every time.

Infinity is generally pretty hard scifi, despite the proliferation of close combat weapons.

Generally, in "fantasy" games the "magic" doesn't have defined laws. What may work one time might not work 3 seconds later.

While in "Science Fiction" games the "technology" has defined laws and works repeatedly.

This is one of the problems that I have with fantasy and science fiction. Most fantasy gaming is replete with extensive rules on just exactly how a fireball works, but science fiction games handwave FTL (FREX FTL ships move at a multiple or power of c based on a "warp factor", giving the conceit of FTL travel, no propulsion system has a smooth, well-defined or constant ratio of power to speed).

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…"

Justice Potter Stewart 1964

Sci-fi is fantasy in a technological setting?

Not long ago i read a piece that defined science fiction as having science that conformed to what is currently known in the field with some extrapolation based on the more solid hypothesis now current.

It used as an example Larry Niven's works. Niven wrote hard SF when decadal to multi-century travel between his solar colonies was based on ships with engines extrapolated from current theories and technology.

He later 'invented' an FTL drive and at that point his fiction became fantasy.

This is one of the problems that I have with fantasy and science fiction. Most fantasy gaming is replete with extensive rules on just exactly how a fireball works,

But are those rules in the game, or rules of how stuff works in the setting?

Big difference between the two.

but science fiction games handwave FTL (FREX FTL ships move at a multiple or power of c based on a "warp factor", giving the conceit of FTL travel, no propulsion system has a smooth, well-defined or constant ratio of power to speed).

But the FTL drive does work predictably, consistently, and has a pretty well compiled list of unintended consequences.

Ergo, the science part of scifi. Though it sounds like your example is Star Trek, which was really "plot drive" with no science to back it up. No list of unintended consequences, either. (Though ironically, NASA has been theorizing about a Trek-like warp drive: link )

The biggest difference between good scifi and fantasy is the presence of the list of unintended consequences.

But are those rules in the game, or rules of how stuff works in the setting?

Big difference between the two.

Not for this discussion …

When it comes to miniature wargaming,

Though it sounds like your example is Star Trek,

I have never played a Star Trek game (that is, using Star Trek rules). My reference is every FTL system in every game I have seen (a couple dozen), none of them have even second order differential equations for movement.

This is easy:

Fantasy = Kate Upton

Science Fiction = Me looking like Liam Hemsworth and standing beside her

As the previous commentators have said, defining a term leads to edge cases: OK I may have paraphrased.

SF is an extrapolation of the present into the future.

Fantasy is mythologizing the past.

The former may attend to any aspect of change: ranging from fear of change to embracing change.

The latter is the best bits version of the past: romantic longing for a simpler past.

In gaming,

SF = the future with advanced weapons technology
Fantasy = the past with magic