There's the difference between story and game.

A classic SF story presents a puzzle and a solution -- regardless of whether the reader wins (or even plays) a game of trying to work out an answer independently.

In a traditional RPG, the point of puzzles really is to challenge the players. It might not be fair to expect them to be as brilliant as a fictional hero who has Isaac Asimov to do his thinking for him! Having the solution revealed despite failure can sometimes work -- the PCs might for instance find out the hard way what To Serve Man really means, or get a report from a later expedition to Planet X -- but on other occasions an "unwon reveal" falls flat.

A "what if" that's more of an ongoing element works better than one-shot setups. For example, the Three Laws of Robotics provide endless entertainment when they run into the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Quote from: Elfdart;880718The main difference is that in Star Trek, they throw the word quantum around like Rip Taylor flings confetti, to dupe scientifically illiterate types into thinking there's REAL SCIENCE going on as they fill up time giving a bullshit explanation

So you're arguing that Star Trek is fundamentally a New Age tv show?

Have you seen the episode with the space hippies?

Quote from: RPGPundit;882137So you're arguing that Star Trek is fundamentally a New Age tv show?

Fundamentally? No, though it's there from TNG on. I just think they toss quantum and tachyon and a lot of scientific-sounding jargon into the scripts to whitewash the fact that at its best Star Trek (especially the old series) is a fun adventure yarn and at worst it's half-baked sermons that are about as subtle as those old Davey and Goliath claymation shorts -and about as convincing.  It has the added benefit I described earlier: consoling  some Trekkies about their sour grapes.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;880725The difference is between Science Fiction and Science Fantasy is actually how much detail that's given to the technology.  Science Fiction likes to explain why things work the way they do.

Unless it's something vital to the plot, taking time out to explain how a machine works isn't Science Fiction, it's SHITTY Fiction.

QuoteScience Fantasy simply accepts them as part and parcel of the setting, and never bothers explaining.

You learn a hell of a lot more about the setting and its technology by noticing what is taken for granted by the characters, rather that what they go to the trouble of explaining. For example, the fact that characters in Star Wars might get in a starship and travel tens of thousands of light years in as little as a few hours just as casually as one might hop on a plane in Dallas and travel to New York is quite an eye-opener to anyone who is not a pedantic bore.

I for one got the message quickly in Blade Runner about how fucked up the future could be by the fact that they used human clones as disposable slaves and no one has a problem with it (aside from the replicants themselves); NOT from exposition about cloning where most if not all the "science" is pure horseshit anyway.

Quote from: Elfdart;882174Unless it's something vital to the plot, taking time out to explain how a machine works isn't Science Fiction, it's SHITTY Fiction.

But as a genre, especially on the harder end of science fiction, it is a common feature. This is a genre where the writer can spend time explaining the tech, it is allowable and even expected at times because new technology is often central to the plot. There is a thought experiment aspect to it. It isn't just limited to tech but to other aspects of the setting. I don't know if it makes it bad fiction, but I have to admit I enjoy those explanations of the technology and of the society (I think it just has a tendency in general to give you more of a window into the gears of the setting). I think it is totally okay to not do that. But I find a book that glosses over it has a much different feel than one that doesn't (and I think one thing the explanation often adds is a sense of realness to things). I will read from both ends of spectrum happily. My view is the writer should play to their strengths here. A person with a background or good understanding of science, it makes sense for them to draw on that.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;882248But as a genre, especially on the harder end of science fiction, it is a common feature.

And that is why it's often so boring when it's turned into movies, TV shows and games. Books are a different matter because they allow for more complex thought, but let's keep it real: When I'm looking for something to base my space adventure game on, Flash Gordon will be much higher on my list of influential reading than any form of so-called "hard" sci-fi.

QuoteThis is a genre where the writer can spend time explaining the tech, it is allowable and even expected at times because new technology is often central to the plot. There is a thought experiment aspect to it. It isn't just limited to tech but to other aspects of the setting. I don't know if it makes it bad fiction, but I have to admit I enjoy those explanations of the technology and of the society (I think it just has a tendency in general to give you more of a window into the gears of the setting). I think it is totally okay to not do that. But I find a book that glosses over it has a much different feel than one that doesn't (and I think one thing the explanation often adds is a sense of realness to things). I will read from both ends of spectrum happily. My view is the writer should play to their strengths here. A person with a background or good understanding of science, it makes sense for them to draw on that.

Whatever floats your boat. For me, 99% of the time exposition comes across as playing to the audience and not only kicks down the 4th wall, it shoots SoD all to hell in the bargain.

Technical details get a lot of attention in Tom Clancy's non-SF, Michael Chrichton's semi-SF, Jule's Verne's for-a-moment EF (Engineering Fiction), and EE 'Doc' Smith's space opera.

Technical details are in my experience usually not so gratuitous in most 'harder' SF, more focused on what is really central to the story.  Sheffield's McAndrew stories are considerably about theoretical physics (Kerr-Newman black holes and such), while Bob Forward goes from that kind of thing back to astronautical engineering (which he did for a living), and Sheffield also has further-future novels that are too packed with wonders to explain every detail.

Quote from: Phillip;882284Technical details get a lot of attention in Tom Clancy's non-SF, Michael Chrichton's semi-SF, Jule's Verne's for-a-moment EF (Engineering Fiction), and EE 'Doc' Smith's space opera.

Technical details are in my experience usually not so gratuitous in most 'harder' SF, more focused on what is really central to the story.  Sheffield's McAndrew stories are considerably about theoretical physics (Kerr-Newman black holes and such), while Bob Forward goes from that kind of thing back to astronautical engineering (which he did for a living), and Sheffield also has further-future novels that are too packed with wonders to explain every detail.

I find it varies a lot from book to book and author to author. A lot of technical stuff is often sprinkled intermittently through the story. If we are including explanations of the economy of the culture and its evolution, then I do find in some science fiction you get more blocks of exposition on the stuff. Personally I really enjoy those moments. It doesn't really matter if it is scientific, historical, economic, or whatever to me, it is when the writer takes an idea, applies it to a society, and thinks it through, then kind of walks you through it in chunks. But I find the opposite approach (weaving it more seamlessly into the edges of the story) less engaging for me. Especially if you are dealing with a culture set in the far future, laying out the details in a clear but readable way works for me (whereas hinting, suggesting, working around it, feels a bit coy). It isn't technical in the scientific sense, but Asimov's The End of Eternity did a great job in my view of explaining the architecture and evolution of the time travel institution at the heart of the story. It was spread out through the book as I recall but done in pretty substantial chunks (usually related to what was going on at the moment but definitely exposition if my memory is correct). I really enjoyed those parts of the story and for me they enhanced the plot and made it easier to engage with.

Quote from: Omega;880838Hard SF can be brutally boring if it isnt some sort of war or criminal theme.........

One could also add horror/psychological horror to that list.

I am probably on the other side of the spectrum to those that made that video. Space opera, planetary romance and sword&planet = Awesome in my mind. But I can appreciate hard sci-fi, or realistic sci-fi, also if there is some actual other theme to it. "It is militairy realistic sci!", or " It is a desolate psychological horror on a space ship in a hard sci-fi environment !", those things I can grok. But only "It is very realistic sci-fi with rules to simulate it"= Not interested.

I think the question isn't why fantasy is more popular with gamers than sci-fi, The real question is why is fantasy more popular with gamers than all other genres put together by a ridiculously wide margin?

Sci-fi is pretty popular. It holds it's own nicely compared to horror and supers among roleplaying games and it's way ahead of modern day police/crime, Westerns or pulp style games. But all of these are just also-rans compared to fantasy in our hobby, always have been.

A lot of this is the D&D effect. D&D and its various clones and spin-offs rule the hobby. Take these guys out of the equation and you will find a much more level playing field between fantasy, sci-fi and other genres and that the more popular non-D&D fantasy games like Runequest or The One Ring aren't played a lot more than Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu.

As for why D&D is so insanely more popular than pretty much all other roleplaying games, that's a conversation for some other day.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405I think the question isn't why fantasy is more popular with gamers than sci-fi, The real question is why is fantasy more popular with gamers than all other genres put together by a ridiculously wide margin?

Because it's much easier to take a pinch this swords & sorcery, a dash of that fantasy, a touch of mythology and folklore with a light dusting of horror plus a generous helping of Hollywood swashbucklers, bake it at 400F and have the end result be something that is edible -and presentable if you apply enough icing to cover up the holes.

Sci-Fi, which features advanced technology, immediately runs into one obstacle: which advanced technology? In your fantasy succotash you could drop Skafloc into Hyperboria, or Conan into Middle Earth, or the Grey Mouser into Poictesme and it's not that much of a difference: you still have guys swinging swords and axes, shooting bows, riding horses, sailing in wooden ships, etc etc etc.

The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

Quote from: Elfdart;883375Because it's much easier to take a pinch this swords & sorcery, a dash of that fantasy, a touch of mythology and folklore with a light dusting of horror plus a generous helping of Hollywood swashbucklers, bake it at 400F and have the end result be something that is edible -and presentable if you apply enough icing to cover up the holes.

Sci-Fi, which features advanced technology, immediately runs into one obstacle: which advanced technology? In your fantasy succotash you could drop Skafloc into Hyperboria, or Conan into Middle Earth, or the Grey Mouser into Poictesme and it's not that much of a difference: you still have guys swinging swords and axes, shooting bows, riding horses, sailing in wooden ships, etc etc etc.

The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

I think the issue is wider than that. Each genre has it's pros and cons. Yes sci-fi can present a technical barrier, but it's a lot of work to sort out your fantasy lore too. Do your trolls turn to stone if exposed to sunlight? How do goblins, sprites and brownies differ? How fast can a flying carpet go and what is its load capacity?

If we were to going for "simple" than every one would be playing games set in the modern day setting, or maybe something like Wild West for a bit more anarchy and stronger cliches.

It is a many faceted equation. That said I still say if one were to factor out D&D and clones, there wouldn't be quite the same popularity gap between fantasy and sci-fi, horror or even supers.

Quote from: Elfdart;883375The tech level in Star Wars is orders of magnitude higher than that portrayed in Star Trek, which in turn is vastly more advanced than what is shown in Alien or The Terminator. For example, in Alien, the crew has to hibernate on long voyages, and a generation may pass between the time they leave their home planet and return from LV-426, which is about 39 light years away. In Star Trek, it can take years to travel a single quadrant. In Star Wars they travel over 100,000 light years in a matter of hours. Mixing the Nostramo, the Enterprise and the Millennium Falcon in the same setting raises a bunch of questions that are harder to cover up with icing than who swings a meaner sword or rides a faster horse.

Clearly you have never read the fan sites dedicated to discussing military conflict between the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe.  

Adding the Aliens Franchise would be a delicious snack for those guys.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405A lot of this is the D&D effect. D&D and its various clones and spin-offs rule the hobby. Take these guys out of the equation and you will find a much more level playing field between fantasy, sci-fi and other genres and that the more popular non-D&D fantasy games like Runequest or The One Ring aren't played a lot more than Star Wars or Call of Cthulhu.

Other fantasy RPGs are just as meh as other genre RPGs are. Add some generic fantasy to the mix (see GURPS Fantasy). More meh. The playing ground seems more level at least.

Quote from: Soylent Green;882405As for why D&D is so insanely more popular than pretty much all other roleplaying games, that's a conversation for some other day.

D&D has the whole wargame thing going for it (each player character is an army of one on a battlemap). And D&D was first, is all.