Science Fiction? Pfft!

[Rick Canaan]

I agree. Dragons would be completely out of their league in battle where science fiction armies were involved - even to the average sniper with an exceptionally good aim.

Dragons, by even today's standards, are large, cumbersome and slow. A single shot from an Abram's tank could shoot one down (all the dragon needs to do is fly a ballistic course for a few seconds for the tank to get a lock). A single shot from a sniper with a 50 caliber rifle could shoot one out of the sky. Load the rifle with depleted uranium cartridges, and the dragon wouldn't even have a remote chance. The bullet would tear through scale, skin and bone as if it was air.

And that isn't even to mention S.A.M. sites. A heat-seeking missile, against a dragon, and how hot are dragon's again? Cloud of blood in the sky would be the result of that situation.

And this business about a dragon having a chance against a military helicopter? Maybe if the dragon caught it by surprise, yeah. But you said it, Brome. The way even today's military choppers are loaded out, it would be a WHOLLY one-sided fight, resulting in chunks of dragonmeat falling out of the sky. And we won't even talk about fixed-wing aircraft. Even a war-world 2 fighter aircraft would way outmatch any dragon.

No, dragons are way outclassed in any science fiction setting. If they got extremely lucky, they might be able to pick off one or two soldiers, but once the army became aware of him, he'd be toast.

I am a little uncertain when it comes to battles between mages and super science fiction warfare technologies. Worm holes verses teleportation, taking over soldiers with mind control, and so on. Like I pointed out in one of my previous posts, mages could be eradicated by well-placed snipers. Militaries are fabulously good at gathering intelligence. They gather intelligence about the mages, how many of them there are, where they are and then deploy long-ranged snipers to take them out. And since mages are the only real powerbase in such a struggle, once you've taken them out, the rest of the fantasy world falls like dominoes.

This could be escalated and we could say, yeah, there could be god-like forces at work here - ultimate liches, super mana that's intelligent, etc - but let's be realistic. There's not too many stories that take conflicts to this level. Moreover, if a military force knew that a fantasy world posed this level of threat to their civilization, they wouldn't play with it. They'd drag several 500-kilimeter wide super asteroids into the system, and then direct them to fall into the planet. Extinction-level event, the fantasy world is done.

And dragging asteroids is easy for any civilization which has developed their space ship technology even up to the point of merely launching from their world. Bring some thrusters out to the rocks, attach them, and then give them brief thrusts in the desired direction.

Between science fiction and fantasy, it is pure fantasy to believe that fantasy could ever win.

[Shade Leshyr]

I disagree with you two highly on your stance with dragons. Both of you seem to be forgetting that dragons aren't purely strength. Dragons also hold an inborn ability to use magic. Even if it's big and cumbersome, it's hard to shoot what you can't see when they simply render themselves invisible or ethereal and not all dragons breath fire or explosive chemicals, you also have ice, acid, time warping breaths, etc.

And I've already referenced the Inheiritance cycle in opposition to your sniper theory Rick. Mages would sense his presence, invade his mind, and kill him with his own life energy.

And you make it sound way too easy to kill a mage. A mage in today's world could easily obliterate an entire army if he was trained well enough without breaking a sweat. Sniper shoots, a shield of mana appears, powered by the mana crystals lining the perimeter of the mages' camp, no mages involved.

I was really hoping not to bring Gods into this, because let's face it, how do you kill something that can unmake reality? And gods kind've tend to like people who worship them more than people that don't think they exist (just saying. A lot of sci-fi has fun trying to give alternate ideas for god...)

And an asteroid? Really Rick? Against people who can turn it around with their minds and slam it into the mothership?

[SliceOfDog]

Playing devils advocate with the two of you (Shade and Rick that is, Brome has escaped my neutral wrath by using big words):

Rick: Dragons are reptilian, yes? So cold blooded, therefore heat seeking missiles would not work on them. And the dealio with the asteroids was in fact already mentioned. Iirc it was in response to Brome's initial "nuke em all and let the God Emperor sort em out" post.

Shade: I really do think that with the ranges of some futuristic (or even modern day) sniper rifles, sensing the lifeforce of the sniper and, moreover, killing them with mind powers gets a little farfetched. We're talking miles worth of distance here, surely even if the creature/mage could sense that far then the lone sniper would be drowned out by other lifeforces? Perhaps the SciFi side would catch on to the lifeforce idea and surround all snipers with bound and gagged PoWs, so to take out snipers the mage/dragon would need to either be extremely lucky or start killing their own people.
Oh, also: sniper drones. No lifeforce.
Secondly, in regards to gods, there are always: godlike creatures belonging to alien races or ripped from other dimensions (the Warp, for example) or individual people or bits of tech that, through some mishap or miscalculation, become godly powerful. A piece of AI that works out how to create atoms, or a human who, when attached to a particular device or due to some invasive SciFi surgery, can manipulate matter with their mind.

[Rick Canaan]

Hahaha! Believe me, this was never my intention, but it looks like things are starting to be taken a little too personally in this thread. So let's try to be a little more objective, and argue points without invective, okay? I'd hate for this thread - which is a very interesting discussion - to descend into a petulant bashing match.

On this note, I admit that my experience with the great deal of fantasy subjects that others in this thread are familiar with, is pretty limited. I've always been very choosy with my reading, picking up only books which caught my interest with their synopsis, author's name or by having the best cover arts. As a result, I've read only a very limited number of books on the subject.

Moreover, my like for fantasy (and science fiction) is restricted only to what can be described as "easily believable". You start getting into gods, uber sciences and the like, and my interest starts to fall very fast. For instance, with Star Trek's easy time travel stuff. Or a fantasy novel where some mage has the power to defeat anything (like in most anime). Err, yeah, right. None for me, thanks.

So, in my thinking, I am debating the practical sides of science fiction and fantasy. No uber magic, no time effects or uber super weapons for science fiction militaries. Bearing that in mind, I am not trying to impugn anybody else's interests, it is just how I see things in regards to the genres.

Oh, but one thing - and this is directed to you, Slice: Dragons may be cold blooded, by don't they like, breathe fire? Wouldn't their muzzles be extremely hot immediately after doing so? An easy lock-on for a heat-seeking missile.

As for the rest of the types of dragons brought up in this thread, I have no experience with them. I know only of the D&D dragons with any measurable familiarity. But more to the point, to me, those are dragons. The rest... meh. Never even heard of most of them prior to this thread. So again, I'll ask everyone to forgive me if it seemed like I was being dismissive.

Either way, let's please keep it objective and fun. Discuss the pros and cons of science fiction Vs. fantasy, not argue about it, in other words, okay?

[Rick Canaan]

Hmmm...

I'll try to qualify some of my argument some. Since I seem to be falling exclusively on the side of science fiction, this seems prudent.

Why do I think science fiction would consistently win over fantasy?

Well for beginners...

Magic users depend upon a per-determined set of powers. This is of course, excluding the uber-magic users that I have argued against, which I will not get into.

Mages in the genres that I've read, roleplayed with (such as in D&D), depend upon spell books, scrolls, or some other knowledge base. This, by its definition, is inherently limiting. A mage can only know a set number of spells. This knowledge base can be large, as in the case of very experienced/wizened mages, but it is still limited. Moreover, given the nature of man as we understand it, when one has a powerful knowledge base, one tends to come to depend upon it - depending on it to solve whatever problems the user of the knowledge base encounters. The necromancer, while he may be able to raise hundreds of skeletons, and those hundreds of skeletons may be a formidable force, what those hundreds of skeletons can do is limited - take up arms, rush enemy positions, be a renewable, expendable resource for the necromancer. The same would hold true for zombies raised by the necromancer, or any other kind of undead he may have at his disposal. While they can be formidable, they can only be used in certain ways, and their uses are limited.

The same holds true for mages of any school. A mage who can cast very powerful fireballs or lightning bolts, magic missiles, or even Time Stop or Wish, are limited. If following the D&D rules for spell casting, even the most powerful of mages can cast limited amounts of these spells. The higher the spell, the more the limitation, too.

Science on the other hand...

Firearms can be manufactured in the thousands, and be replaced as often as avenues of supply will allow. Moreover, men can be replaced just as readily. Men get killed, even whole armies, more can be sent to take their place.

Even more, science is adaptable. Let's say a dragon is easily defeating even the best fighter jets and helicopters. The army's generals look at this, call upon tactical knowledge bases, bring in experts and develop tactics to defeat the dragon. The dragon is powerful. He has armor which can withstand most firepower, or speed that can out maneuver most aircraft, or smarts enough to employ tactics of his own. However, he is just a dragon. He is limited by this. Whereas the military, able to call upon whatever experts it needs, can develop methods for overcoming the dragon. Not necessarily a superweapon tailored to the dragon, but just a new tactic for defeating his advantages. The dragon's eventual defeat is a foregone conclusion. Fantasy employs power. Militaries are flexible and can employ tactics.

The same holds true for the scenario of snipers Vs. Mages that I postulated. So, let's agree that a mage was able to detect a sniper and kill him with a magical spell. As soon as the army becomes aware of this, they can change tactics with the snipers. Capture an enemy soldier, let's say, put an unloaded weapon in his hands and force him onto a ridge overlooking the mage's position. Okay, the mage detects him, casts his spell and kills him. While the sniper the mage doesn't see - because he was well hidden on another ridge - takes him out with a shot from an entirely different direction. A mage, no matter how power he is, is only one mage. He could then be surrounded by dozens of such snipers, one of them sure beyond all doubt, to get him. Even if he thwarts the attack with a Wish, a backup squad could be waiting, to then rush the mage after he had exhausted this very powerful spell. Or to expand on it even further, several squads attacking him in waves until he is killed. A sound tactic. Soldiers die in wars. It is one of those expected costs of war. So then, while it may take over a hundred men to eventually defeat the mage - the mage killing all but just the bare few of them - the mage's eventual defeat is a foregone conclusion. And since a mage would be a powerbase that needed to be taken out in order for the regular army to advance, it is a logical expenditure an army would make in order to take him out.

Mages, even the most powerful ones, by their definition, are singular. Moreover, even if they formed a cadre or alliance to stand against the army, by the definition of what mages are, there would comparatively very few of them, when compared to the numbers which can be deployed by a science-based army. In most fantasy stories, mages are few, and the more powerful they are, the fewer they are. In most stories I've ever read involving mages, the most powerful ones are looked up to and revered - yes, because of how powerful they are, but also because of how rare they are. While armies on the other hand, spread their power bases over larger areas of expertise, among deploy-able troops and machines, and can radically alter that power base at need with the implementation of tactics.

Science fiction - One
Fantasy - Zero

It couldn't go any other way. Logic demands that science - by its very nature - will overcome fantasy in every single conflict.

One mage against one guy with a gun. Pfft. One hundred-ton dragon Vs. an armor-suited guy with a force field, pfft. But when you start looking at broader-scaled conflicts, it will always be science which will emerge on top. Logically, theoretically, and in any other way you want to thinkk about it. Science wins, magic completely unable to contend with the adaptability of science.

[Shade Leshyr]

You can't really look at D&D for all your mage facts, cause the game in and of itself has to limit a player from being too powerful. True mages are limited only by what they can imagine and will Mana to let them do. Essentially, you are pitting man's soul against iron and machine, which by themselves are absolutely useless without someone to operate/direct them. Magic has a lasting property where a cast spell can linger for the rest of eternity, such as cursed forests.

Sci-fi soldiers would probably be coming to the mages' planet, meaning they wouldn't know enough about the terrain to avoid falling prey to curses, ancient magics, etc.

And flexibility is a universal technique of man. Just as sci-fi would adapt to better combat dragons, mages would employ barriers and trigger spells to snap back on the attackers, and trigger spells are so damn sudden that you'll probably find yourself fried before you can do anything.

And as for putting a captured unit on the hill, mages that could sense minds would be able to, in the fraction of an instant, know the person's affiliation, intent, etc.

Mages are so rare because they tap into the raw forces of nature, which would destroy most people, so once again, I stress, how are you going to fight them when they simply turn the very world itself against you?

So between losing units to hazards of residue magic, the elements, and mages adapting to render all the sci-fi fighting techniques obsolete, I still throw my hat in with fantasy. Look, it doesn't matter how much sci-fi adapts, they are still bound by rigid laws of physics, but magic is unrestrained, completely capable of destroying civilizations from history itself. You also point out how you can mass produce weaponry, please enlighten me how you're going to produce without materials? Eventually, you WILL run out.

I can't tell you how many times people have told me that you can't pit logic against magic because magic is NOT logical, it does not follow logical ideas, magic is beyond logic, raw magic is far more powerful and dangerous than anything science can create.

[Rick Canaan]

You can't really look at D&D for all your mage facts, cause the game in and of itself has to limit a player from being too powerful. True mages are limited only by what they can imagine and will Mana to let them do. Essentially, you are pitting man's soul against iron and machine, which by themselves are absolutely useless without someone to operate/direct them. Magic has a lasting property where a cast spell can linger for the rest of eternity, such as cursed forests.

Sci-fi soldiers would probably be coming to the mages' planet, meaning they wouldn't know enough about the terrain to avoid falling prey to curses, ancient magics, etc.

And flexibility is a universal technique of man. Just as sci-fi would adapt to better combat dragons, mages would employ barriers and trigger spells to snap back on the attackers, and trigger spells are so damn sudden that you'll probably find yourself fried before you can do anything.

And as for putting a captured unit on the hill, mages that could sense minds would be able to, in the fraction of an instant, know the person's affiliation, intent, etc.

Mages are so rare because they tap into the raw forces of nature, which would destroy most people, so once again, I stress, how are you going to fight them when they simply turn the very world itself against you?

Tactics, tactics, tactics. So, an army can't pass through an enchanted/cursed forest without being destroyed. You employ aircraft to fly over the forest. If the air above the forest is equally hazardous, you take to space, dropping troops onto the other side of the forest, to overcome it.

Either way, Shade, what is with all of this invective? You tell me I can't use just D&D rules to define my argument. I can, however, and I did. Moreover, I used its rules upon which to base my argument. I thought I made that pretty clear. I know that there are other fantasy genres out there, but it is one with which I am familiar and so I used it. I am also familiar with Tolkien and Robert Jordon and some Piers Anthony. More to the point, all of these authors' genres can be overcome by science. Where science can't overcome fantasy, only occurs where the fantasy becomes so fantastic, that which would win between the two becomes a completely out-there argument. It becomes not even worth arguing about anymore.

Magic becomes so uber-powerful that science doesn't stand a chance. All right. Science becomes so powerful that they could cast the whole fantasy world into a star. See what I mean? You start getting into the too-fantastic, and the argument becomes pointless. Where the argument is kept in the realm of the practical, however, it is science which will always win.

Either way...

Please enlighten me how you're going to...

One more comment like this, and I am going to close this thread. We are not here to get into a shouting contest, nor is anyone seeking to impugn another's point of view. This is meant to be a fun debate. It will stay that way, or I will end it. No one is required to enlighten anybody. Keep the debate fun, keep it mature, or please don't add anymore to it. I am tired of being shouted at because my point of view is not agreed with.

[Shade Leshyr]

The whole point I'm trying to get across is sci-fi HAS to follow the laws of physics. Magic does not.

[Brome Teks]

Mages are so rare because they tap into the raw forces of nature, which would destroy most people, so once again, I stress, how are you going to fight them when they simply turn the very world itself against you?

Not to further the escalation, but...

[Shade Leshyr]

Look, I need to just leave this thread alone cause this is a very sore subject for me. Sorry for bringing my bad attitude on top of a biased opinion into what was probably going to be a really good discussion.

[SliceOfDog]

No worries Shade. I think that people who are particularly passionate about a very broad topic like SciFi or Fantasy are bound to let their enthusiasm get the better of them in a debate about which is best. I think the main problem here is that it devolved into looking at what fantasy and scifi are, as opposed to what they sometimes are or can be. We all have to remember that each series is a universe in its own right and has different rules and ideas.

The best comparison I can think of is that Would You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse quiz that did the rounds a few years ago. I kept scoring quite low on the Zombie knowledge area because they were rigidly sticking to the Dawn of the Dead canon, whereas if you look at all zombie films some of their 'correct' answers become questionable. "Can animals become zombies?" and "Do zombies retain some of their memories from life" depends entirely on what lore you're basing your answers on. So when you start saying "Fantasy can do this. SciFi can do that" it can quickly become a case of what your favourite series is and how much you know about it.

Let's have a little cool-off period. We'll leave this thread for a day or so, then come back to it for it's (primary) original purpose: suggesting comical or interesting scenarios where the two genres are facing off.

[Rick Canaan]

No worries Shade. I think that people who are particularly passionate about a very broad topic like SciFi or Fantasy are bound to let their enthusiasm get the better of them in a debate about which is best. I think the main problem here is that it devolved into looking at what fantasy and scifi are, as opposed to what they sometimes are or can be. We all have to remember that each series is a universe in its own right and has different rules and ideas.

The best comparison I can think of is that Would You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse quiz that did the rounds a few years ago. I kept scoring quite low on the Zombie knowledge area because they were rigidly sticking to the Dawn of the Dead canon, whereas if you look at all zombie films some of their 'correct' answers become questionable. "Can animals become zombies?" and "Do zombies retain some of their memories from life" depends entirely on what lore you're basing your answers on. So when you start saying "Fantasy can do this. SciFi can do that" it can quickly become a case of what your favourite series is and how much you know about it.

Let's have a little cool-off period. We'll leave this thread for a day or so, then come back to it for it's (primary) original purpose: suggesting comical or interesting scenarios where the two genres are facing off.

Well said, Slice. Well said.

[Brome Teks]

I'm ready to come back to this thread.

Let's focus on a specific example, D&D 3.5. The books contain a great many Spells you can do all kids of things with. Given the setting is fantasy, that makes sense. However, there's a section of the DM's guide that offers renaissance, modern, and even futuristic weapon damages and effects.

Now looking at them, modern weapons are about capable of matching damage output of 3rd level spells, futuristic ones can knock that up to 5th level or so. D&D spell levels go up to 9th though, so clearly there's a ton more damage the spells can do. Higher level ones can summon meteors, stop time, or turn your foe into a shrew. Forever.

However, the usefulness of both the spells and the weapons grants them a wide range of different uses. The technological weapons aren't limited by spells/day, though if the DM is stingy about keeping track of your shots and giving you ammo, this advantage may be negated. Furthermore, the weapons don't require taking levels in mage classes, which come with heavy penalties to other combat areas like saves, HP, and armor/weapon bonuses. All that they require is you take the feats to become familiar with the weapons in question. The higher level spells also require your mage be a higher class level, but your DM might give you weapons at a lower level than an mage would need to be to match the destructive output, so that goes back to my argument of how anyone can use technology.

You could have a Paladin complete with heavy armor, light magic, and a great sword, and then add an antimatter rifle on the side fairly easily. You could replace a ranger's longbow with a sniper rifle. You could give your dwarf fighter a shotgun or flame thrower. Give your rogue a tommy gun so when he pulls off his cloak of invisibility in the middle of a room of enemies, he can shout "Surprise, dungbrains!"

Alas, there isn't one defining equation for how useful each of these things is in relation to each other. Depending on your playstyle, campaign and setting, it could skew heavily towards magic, towards technological weapons, or meet dead in the middle.

[Brome Teks]

Double post, but for your enjoyment:

RAAAWWWR!