GrimGent - I see what you mean, but Dunsany isn't a problem - wonder and evocation is at the core of what he's up to. Cabell and Vance and Leiber are actually the harder cases for my view along the lines you mention. I think they fit, but they do stretch things somewhat, and in the direction of stuff like Pratchett, Anthony, or Aspirin which for me is over the line.

Quote from: CalithenaCabell and Vance and Leiber are actually the harder cases for my view along the lines you mention.

"For in becoming the consort of a nature myth connected with the Moon, Jurgen had of course exposed himself to the danger of being converted into a solar legend by the Philologists, and in that event would be compelled to leave Cocaigne with the Equinox, to enter into autumnal exploits elsewhere."

I'm fond of Cabell, but his novels may be something of an acquired taste these days.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem is that Fantasy and Sci-fi as a whole are NOT quality literature.

That's true of any genre though, including literary fiction, most of which isn't actually all that good.

It's hardly meaningful to say that the majority of a genre isn't great literature, firstly it may not be trying to be and secondly no genre passes that test anyway.

Moving to other posters' comments, it's not important that sf be based on current science, it's simply that hard sf is the descriptive term for speculative fiction that is based on current science.  It's a label, not a prescription.

Accordingly, over time things which were hard sf when written would not be hard sf if published today, as our understanding of science has changed.  Logically, some stuff published as hard sf today if published a hundred years from now would not be.  Whether you still count stuff that's now out of date as hard sf or not is up to you.


Charles Stross and Alasdair Reynolds are generally considered hard sf, I don't know where Stephenson is put but I don't think he's actually an sf author, he writes a range of things and sf was a small part of that.

Iain M Banks is space opera, it is reasonably hard but I don't think that's his motivation.  Interestingly, he is also of course very well regarded as a writer of literary fiction, for which he drops the middle M.

Is there a roleplaying angle to this thread or should it be in other topics?

Quote from: BalbinusIs there a roleplaying angle to this thread or should it be in other topics?

I keep trying to steer it towards role-playing, but damn if it doesn't seem to take, y'know? This thread seems to look more like people want to debate what is and isn't in their preferred genre (which I'm sure is great, but...)

So, pure evocation and wonder is swell, but I don't think it does anything for fun roleplaying. Notice how hard people have been trying to shoehorn Middle Earth into roleplaying all these years? It's not impossible, but by and large, you really have to work to have it succeed!

I have points! Ooh!
Ok:
First, Fantasy has some qualifications, some of which is another world where (I believe, so far) that the physics are different and this different world gives us seperation between us and the world.

However: This can create a genre trap. Much like SciFi can become techno or militeristic wankery, so can Fantasy fall into the area of wish-fulfillment and pure escapism.

But, There isn't anything inherant in the genre that forces that. It's possible that the devide allows us to look at contentious issues. I don't feel it's a 'what if we had X', but rather, 'given that there is a great enough difference in our world and this, what do you do?

You can game anything dumb, hard scifi or not. Why can't you? If you want to game it smart, you play as if the worlds issues mean something to your character. In fantasy, the issues are more likely to be social or something then in scifi where the issue is more easily what we do with scientific progression or,perhaps, our limits.

It's no fun to game with this forced down your players throats, but it makes for a fulfilling and immersive thing to have in your background.

For example, in Blue Rose. Let's say that your characters have a strong tendancy towards being Light-Aligned however, they have a strong tendancy towards full self determination. That's a social issue. So, while they go on adventures, they may very well have to deal with the fact that their views are marginalized by a radioactive deer-god.

Any love for Gene Wolfe on here? Book of the New Sun, Latro In the Mist, The Wizard Knight, all absolutely incredible...

Quote from: AkrasiaOut of curiousity, how would Ian M. Banks, Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds, Neal Stephenson, and Charles Stross be classified?

I'd actually disagree with Balbinus on these.

Stephenson's a guiding light of Cyberpunk.  At the moment, he's producing historical fiction.  We'll see where he goes for his next book.  Either way, he's not hard SF.

Richard Morgan's an SF thriller writer.

Ian M. Banks is space opera and is just plain SF.

Stross is difficult to categorise.  Accelerando is Hard SF.  He also writes horror/spy novels and post-cyberpunk and mainstream SF.

Reynolds is tricky.  I'd say that he isn't simply because the bulk of his books are all about world-building and blending genres and a thriller-style plot.  He also flirts with modern scientific ideas.


Hard SF is a sub-genre all of its own.  It has its own history, its own aims and its own tropes.

EDIT : I don't particularly like Gene Wolf.  I gave up on his big series after a hundred pages or so, though for no obvious reason.  It just didn't inspire me.

Quote from: WarthurAny love for Gene Wolfe on here? Book of the New Sun, Latro In the Mist, The Wizard Knight, all absolutely incredible...

I just finished rereading New Sun. It would certainly make for an interesting RPG setting.

Quote from: WarthurAny love for Gene Wolfe on here? Book of the New Sun, Latro In the Mist, The Wizard Knight, all absolutely incredible...

I've only read his 'New Sun' series, but thought it was really amazing.  I tried reading one of his 'Long Sun' books, but just couldn't get into it for some reason.  

Quote from: GrimGentI just finished rereading New Sun. It would certainly make for an interesting RPG setting.

There is a GURPS New Sun setting book.  I remember reading part of it and thinking it quite good.

Quote from: WarthurAny love for Gene Wolfe on here? Book of the New Sun, Latro In the Mist, The Wizard Knight, all absolutely incredible...

One of my favourite authors. Even his lesser works (does he have any?) is way ahead of the good stuff from most writers.

Regards,
David R

New Sun?

(I've kind of given up on my topic, I guess. The thread, as they say, has mostly moved on...)

I think the reason vanilla fantasy works so well for rpgs, is that it puts the characters at the front of the stage.

RPGs are not novels, not films, not tv series.  The key to an rpg is that you have several people participating.

A bland setting requiring little thought means the setting will likely get less attention, that can be a problem in a novel.  In an rpg it can be a strength.

What is special in rpgs?  What is the key element?  The PCs.

A dull setting means that the attention does not go on the setting, instead therefore it is likely to settle on the PCs, and that's great because that's what the participants most care about.

So, generic fantasy setting 101 necessarily puts the PCs front and centre, as the setting holds little interest.  Mechanical Dream, to take a counter example, is highly unusual fantasy but you will necessarily have to spend a lot of time thinking about the setting and how it works.

In a novel the Mechanical Dream setting might work very well, in an rpg though Greyhawk will probably let you spend more time focussing on the PCs.

Similarly sf, a fairly standard large space empire lets you focus on the PCs, a fascinating extrapolation of scientific theory not so much.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'd actually disagree with Balbinus on these.

Stephenson's a guiding light of Cyberpunk.  At the moment, he's producing historical fiction.  We'll see where he goes for his next book.  Either way, he's not hard SF.

Richard Morgan's an SF thriller writer.

Ian M. Banks is space opera and is just plain SF.

Stross is difficult to categorise.  Accelerando is Hard SF.  He also writes horror/spy novels and post-cyberpunk and mainstream SF.

Reynolds is tricky.  I'd say that he isn't simply because the bulk of his books are all about world-building and blending genres and a thriller-style plot.  He also flirts with modern scientific ideas.


Hard SF is a sub-genre all of its own.  It has its own history, its own aims and its own tropes.

EDIT : I don't particularly like Gene Wolf.  I gave up on his big series after a hundred pages or so, though for no obvious reason.  It just didn't inspire me.

Howcome you let Stephenson through but not Stross?  Relatively little of Stephenson's output is now sf, and I'd query whether his cyberpunk fiction was particularly hard sf.  Ur-languages?

Iain M Banks I think we said much the same thing, Alasdair Reynolds does strive to keep within the bounds of current knowledge and springboard from that, although within that he admittedly pursues plots for which the science is not key.

Quote from: BalbinusHowcome you let Stephenson through but not Stross?  Relatively little of Stephenson's output is now sf, and I'd query whether his cyberpunk fiction was particularly hard sf.  Ur-languages?

  To be fair Stephenson just published 4 huge historical (or at least partly historical) books.  If his next book is historical I think we'll be able to draw a line under his SF career but I saw those 4 books as one big project.

  I don't think Stephenson's hard SF.  As I said "Either way, he's not hard SF".  Stephenson's slightly weird in this respect as he comes from a hard science background, is hugely knowledgeable not only about the history and content of science but how science works... and yet he doesn't set out to explicitly engage with scientific ideas and if he does it's generally as a tangent delivered through info-dumps (as in the maths in Cryptonomicon) rather than as a part of the main plot.

  Stross is a writer who is starting to really annoy the cogs off of me.  I get the real impression that he's coasting as an artist.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalTo be fair Stephenson just published 4 huge historical (or at least partly historical) books.  If his next book is historical I think we'll be able to draw a line under his SF career but I saw those 4 books as one big project.

  I don't think Stephenson's hard SF.  As I said "Either way, he's not hard SF".  Stephenson's slightly weird in this respect as he comes from a hard science background, is hugely knowledgeable not only about the history and content of science but how science works... and yet he doesn't set out to explicitly engage with scientific ideas and if he does it's generally as a tangent delivered through info-dumps (as in the maths in Cryptonomicon) rather than as a part of the main plot.

  Stross is a writer who is starting to really annoy the cogs off of me.  I get the real impression that he's coasting as an artist.

I missed the either way he's not hard sf bit, I read your post but somehow glided over that element.

Quote from: Theodore Sturgeon90% of everything is shit

I've read smart fantasy. A Voyage to Arcturus for example. Or Ursula K. Leguin's A Wizard of Earthsea. Works that use their worlds to good effect when addressing human concerns.

Fantasy's concern is not with what could be, fantasy's concern is with people. With what happens to people in crisis and peril. Keep in mind that Frodo Baggins failed. He gave his word, and he broke it. The task was more than he could handle, and in that The Lord of the Rings is a great tragedy. It helps when the world is reasonable, when it does not keep hitting you over the head with all sorts of odd strangeness for odd strangeness sake, but when you can find no reason to concern yourself with the people, you might as well just toss in the trash.

Neil Gaiman's Anasazi Boys is a most implausible tale. But you care about the characters. You care about Fat Charlie and you find yourself caring for his brother Spider. You can even find it within yourself to care about poor Tiger, especially after he gets stuck with the new idiot god, Stoat. And that's what fantasy is really all about, the people.

That's where Martin has it all over Jordan, A Song of Ice and Fire is about the people. The Wheel of Time is only about the theme, and Jordan hasn't the skill necessary for theme alone to carry his books. You care about Martin's characters, but Jordan doesn't give you anybody to care about.

And fantasy is about the land, the world the characters live in. Not to the same extent that westerns are, but more, really, than any genre after westerns. About the only other genre more connected to setting than fantasy is the detective story, and those don't encompass entire worlds.

Finally, fantasy is about the fantastic. Not great gobs of fantastic as you get in today's version of a certain RPG, but the fantastic in small doses where it can have a real impact on lives. I read a story once where the hero gets trapped in a garden with a foo dog. A guardian spirit embodied in a statue and empowered to hunt down and devour trespassers. It is only because he winds up owning the place thanks to the original owner's will that the beast is kept at bay. One item, one fantastical thing in an otherwise ordinary English country garden, yet we have a fantasy more worthy of the name than the stuff put out by such as Jordan, Modesitt, and, yes, even Meville.

But above all else fantasy is about the people. For without the people, without the heroes and villains, without the common folk and the armies that march across the land, it's only an empty accounting of long ago events in a world that couldn't possibly exist in our world. For all his obsession with the weird and grotesque, at least Meville has people in his stories.

For all his flaws as a film maker at least Peter Jackson managed to make the orcs people. An enemy worthy of respect, instead of the faceless mob Tolkein presented. Though he doesn't get Tolkein, not really, Peter Jackson gets fantasy.