This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101928Ah, I don't know, I struggle to see any definition of soft scifi that encompasses worlds in which "protection from evil" spell magic exists.

Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"

Soft Sci-Fi still relies on some degree of science to create/solve its problems; Star Trek is very soft sci-fi.

Science Fantasy is a setting where the only point of the technology is to look cool while fantastic stories that could, with a little palette swapping, would work identically in a fantasy setting. Star Wars is Science Fantasy.

The First and Second Iron Man were Soft Sci-Fi (much of the drama centered around Tony's inventions and who got to use them); Thor 1-3 and both Guardians of the Galaxy films were science fantasy (the sci-fi elements existed only for visual dynamics, not as thing central to the actual narrative).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?




Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"

Lets see, any technology sufficiently advanced will look like magic to the outsider, doesn't mean that a species with FTL travel thinks their tech is magic.

Psionics can easily step into fantasy land when you go overboard and (speaking of TTRPGs) just convert the magic spells into psionics. Doesn't mean that all psionics is magic.

Hard Sci-Fi is usually more rooted on science, with as little as possible handwavium or Unobtanium. While soft Sci-Fi has little to no use for hard science, but even Star Trek falls somewhere in the soft Sci-Fi realm. But as a general rule the less handwavium or Unobtanium (zero if possible) the better for any hard Sci-Fi.

Magic means what you already know it means, elfs, and trolls, witches and wizards, dragons and magic wands, warding from evil, etc.

Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

So we're talking more of a gradient than a real hard separation, but this might interest you The Scale of Hardness in Science Fiction

Sci fiction tends to be occasionally fantastical. But still overall scientifically explainable, even if its some weird application. Psi is the big one. It is still quantifiable and explainable in most settings with it.

Sci fantasy tends to be a mix. There may be real magic which is unexplainable, or gods, or other supernatural elements that defy science within the setting.

And sometimes something that looks Sci Fantasy may not be.

But then you get into the same damn problem with people who broaden the terms to mean practically "everything on earth!" With Science Fantasy being applied willy nilly to anything some moron disapproves of to the point it DOES mean everything on earth.

Its got psionics? Fantasy!
Its got artificial gravity? Fantasy!
Its got FTL? Fantasy!
Its got aliens? Fantasy!
Its got laser guns? Fantasy!
Its got space ships? Fantasy!
Its got vehicles going faster than 60mph? Fantasy!

ad nausium

I would agree with Omega, vehicles traveling faster then 60mph definitely fantasy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101939Magic means what you already know it means, elfs, and trolls, witches and wizards, dragons and magic wands, warding from evil, etc.

Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

Lifeforce, based on the novel The Space Vampires by Colin Wilson

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101939Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

Life Force



Edit: Ninja'd while finding poster on Google damnit!

Quote from: JeremyR;1101946Lifeforce, based on the novel The Space Vampires by Colin Wilson

Thanks, now to hunt it down to re watch it, to see if it still holds up

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933Where do you draw the line? Why?

To me "Sci Fi" or even Science Fiction tends to be a setting that makes an honest attempt to be plausible and realistic.
In my mind that covers "Star Trek" (mostly), the 'TRAVELLER' setting when traveling between jump point and planets is handled with an attempt at real physics.
Many of the GURPS settings use real science.

"Science-Fantasy" is where space is the setting and spaceships are used by characters - but it is so over the top at the times for the sake of swashbuckling that you have to grin or laugh.
That would be these game settings: 'Star Wars', "STARFINDER", the Doctor Who universe, and some versions of "Gamma World". Oh, and of course most comic book /Superhero universes.

- Ed C.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101948Thanks, now to hunt it down to re watch it, to see if it still holds up

I rewatched it about 2 years ago. The lead female space vampire spends about half the movie walking around completely naked, just like I remembered from seeing it in the theater back in the 80s.

In other words, it still holds up.

More seriously, nudity aside Lifeforce is actually pretty batshit crazy. Maybe Tobe Hooper was still on the same coke binge he was supposedly on while making Poltergeist.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1101950I rewatched it about 2 years ago. The lead female space vampire spends about half the movie walking around completely naked, just like I remembered from seeing it in the theater back in the 80s.

In other words, it still holds up.

Damn! I first saw it on the open tv, so no nude walking!

"Hard sci-fi relies on actual science" .... I have long felt something was wrong with statements like that, and i'm pretty sure why nowadays:
It seems, in that case, as if ALL sci-fi i've ever read and/or watched, was "soft sci-fi" or even space fantasy, but when i grew up, it was seen as science fiction, nothing else.
Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, Robert A Heinlein?
All ranging from very soft sci-fi to Space Fantasy.
Yes, ESPECIALLY Asimovs Foundation Saga and Robot timeline.
Essentially, this whole thing is just nonsense!

No, i make my distinction between Sci Fi and Fantasy based on the amount of visible hi-tech and Space faring in hi-tech space ships vs low-tech or magic(and that magic may be hi-tech, but unexplainable to others) and how planet-bound the setting is.

John Carter or Flash Gordon is "Science-Fantasy" to me.
Star Wars, Star Trek, Andromeda, Babylon 5, and Transformers when they are on Cybertron is clear Sci-fi to me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"

Soft sci-fi: Stuff is just yours. No economy. No space helmets.
Sci-fantasy: Stuff is just yours. No economy. No space helmets. A much higher tech level than soft sci-fi.

I don't draw a line. Instead, I do absolutely everything I can to blur it and revel in it. I'm totally fine with calling it all fantasy. Personally I prefer to refer to all of it - hard, soft, unfettered imagination - as capital r Romance. What varies along that spectrum is the amount of Romanticism in play.

Psionics gets to be soft Sci-fi. It's key in most Space Opera and offers an alternative to transhumanism as a means of human advancement. One fun soft Sci-fi theory, is that the nonsense that will allow for FTL will cause the development of Psychic powers.

It's soft Sci-fi because in leans on extradimensional truths that we know exist, but can't even begin to guess at. We know that there is physics that exist outside of space-time. We don't know how it works. This willingness to guess at how the universe works with no scientific basis is soft Sci-fi.

It becomes science fantasy once you give up entirely. The Force in Star Wars is just magic even the technobable explanation in the Prequels doesn't really begin to make the Force Sci-fi, that only made it closer to hard-magic.