Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all.
I was pondering the classifications that some gamers use for 40k.

Some say it is Sci Fantasy , Sci fi minatures with a fantasy rule set.And 40k should be 'WH in space with guns'.
Because that how it started off.
And any suggestions to change the game mechanics for something more in synergy with the current game play gets short shrift from these gamers.

Some gamers focus on the units in 40k and draw parralels with real world counter parts.To these gamers the 40k units look like futureistic versions of present day mliltary.
So these folk think 40k is/should be Sci fi .

An argument often put forward is if you dont use 40k rules you are not playing 40k.
I belive if you use 40k minatures you are playing 40k!(Even if you use other rule sets like Stargrunt II, Infinity, Warzone, No limits,etc .)

And I am sure some folk are going to say that the 40k rule set is different to WH .
Superficialy it is, but the core game mechanics remain the same.

Do you think sci fantasy is a valid game descriptor.
Or is it just covering up a game development oversight, and 40k should be Sci fi through and through?

Just looking for opinions of fellow Dakkarites.
No right or wrong here , just different view points.

TTFN
Lanrak.

It's because Sci-Fantasy is better in my opinion.

The Tau, to me, are the first true Sci-Fi army in 40k. No deities, no psychic (magic) just pure tech. They, and not the IG, are also the closest 'real world' equivalent army, depending not on hammerblow numbers, but strategy and manouvers to isolate and destroy.

The IG are much more 1st World War era, thousands of men sent to their deaths so the General can move his drinks cabinet 6" closer to victory.

Lanrak wrote:Do you think sci fantasy is a valid game descriptor.

Sure it's a valid descriptor, there are lots of good reasons and contexts for fantasy:

Fantasy (as in high fantasy)
...because the combatants still use Swords in an age of space travel.

Fantasy (as in fantastic)
...the scope of the univers including magic and psionics or super powers

Fantasy (as in arrousing)
...Sisters of Battle, Eldar Banshees, Slanesh

Fantasy (romantic, in a novel sense)
...space pirates, swashbuckling

Lanrak wrote:Or is it just covering up a game development oversight, and 40k should be Sci fi through and through?

Wouldn't that position imply some sort of prescience to know the intent of every writer who made the genre? Or possibly a final authority to decide where the boundary of Sci Fi could be? A pretty tough case to make. So...

Yes, it's a terrible development oversight! All the fake comic book, imaginary, pretend, abstract absurdity should be totally removed in favor of only plausible...

fictions?

Also, look at the Technology of the game. Again, barring the Tau, also the Tyranids, nobody really seems to know why what they are using works.

Adeptus Mechanicus are more superstition than engineering.

The Eldar are fading fast.

Orks just sort of bash stuff together and believe it will work..

And so on.

40k is definitely Sci-Fantasy:

Classic Fantasy archetypes:
- space knights (MEQs)
- space elves (Eldar)
- space orks
- space undead (Necrons)
- space magic ("psykers")

Note also that 40k doesn't even bother with pseudo-science of midichlorians or Dilithium Crystals

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Technology of the game. Orks just sort of bash stuff together and believe it will work..

Yes that is a fantasy.

If 40k where somehow, I'm going to invent a term here:

"HALOized"!

A lot of things might not make so much sense anymore.

Wouldn't all the space faring races just bombard the lower tech races from orbit?

Essentially there wouldn't be anymore Orks.

The living space ships of the Tyranids, a match for Imperial or Eldar fleets? Probably not.

Imperial Guard armies viable at all? with space faring technology: teleporters, orbital lifters, levitating tanks, titans, probably not.

If space marines can build jetbikes and landspeeders, and thunderhawks, (levitating tanks) why do they need
tracked tanks at all?

The dying race of the Eldar is sending their civilian core into battle as conscripted Guardians? Doesn't make a lot of sense...

Orks are a fungus, so they grow... Wouldn't some sort of bio warfare agent eradicate them, like say a future tech weed B gone? A pretty bad piece of writing...

If the Imperium has:
"EXTERM][NATUS"
that can scour an entire planet of organic material, why are Tyranids a problem at all?

How did the Eldar "forget" how warpgates are built?

How can a chapter be only 1000 marines, when in my games I regularly get 50 or so killed, wouldn't that only be enough marines, for say, 20 battles?

I could go on...

*edit, added quote

Also, the more Fantastical elements tend to enhance the mood of the game, one of general despair and despondency.

Billions of ordinary humans eke out an existence, never seeing the light of day. And this is done to keep the IG fighting. It is a fantastic dystopian future!

It doesn't have anything to do with the rules set, it's the themes and imagery of the game that evokes the Sci-fantasy moniker. 40k is the least sci-fi futuristic thing that I've encountered. Technology is almost an afterthought, insomuch as it's a mystical thing that no one understands too well. Gothic imagery dominates, even outside of the Imperium. It's difficult to describe, exactly, but 40k doesn't have the clean lines and advanced tech of "normal" sci-fi, nor even the urban chaos of cyberpunk. Back when it was created, it was way off in the spectrum of sci-fi, and while the gaps in sci-fi tropes may have been filled in by other worlds and game systems in the 30 years since, 40k still a very unique atmosphere.

Hope that makes sense despite the rambling.

Hmmm. Someone willing to do the whole "criticism of the question itself"-routine?
Starting with the exception of alternative qualifiers (like pulp), the exception of additional qualifiers (like "epic" or "dark"), touching the historical notion (this is neither 60s-western-"Dangerous visions"-style scifi nor War-of-the-worlds-style scifi, same for fantasy) ending with the broad scope of the work (inconsistent tone: Ciaphas Kain vs. Ibram Gaunt)?

I don't. So I'll go with this: It is a basic scifi premise: Mankind is spread far across the universe. That means it is old and it probably needs FTL travel. Like with worm holes. Warp.

And then someone comes by and says "well, how about making that 5th dimension not just a physical dimension.... but freaking hell itself?". SciFi? SciFantasy? I'll go with _pure genius_ instead.

The 40k universe got other aspects, of course. There is part social scepticism (the worth of live), part technical scepticism (mysticism instead of understanding), part pure epic fantasy (dying races and the omnipresence of one's "biggest mistake", be it Horus for the humans, Slaneesh for the eldar). There are parts that are completely off from real-world ideas (a working theocracy, who ever heard about that?), other that strangely come back though few would have expected (the comeback of small-arms on modern battlefields, who ever guessed that?) - which tells me that the realism-aspect will need to be re-evaluated quite often. Hmmm. The magic-aspect will need the same fine-tuning probably, no matter what Michio Kaku tells us today.

I fear I have to go with one points mentioned under general criticisms: The scope is too broad for one term. But I guess the OP already knew that. Good start of a discussion, though ;-)

Also, consider the Titan.

Not only a monicker for a God Like being from Myth (and indeed, Father of Gods!) but also viewed as the physical incarnation of a Machine God.

Enormous fighting machines, capable of levelling cities in minutes. Noted for blasting our prayers and hymns as they go about their business. This reinforces that, in the 41st Millenium, Faith has replaced despair. Add in that these God-Machines, many of which predate the founding of the Imperium (10,000 years ago) are known and lauded as individuals, and you are again breaking from Sci-Fi norms.

Consider a kind of comparisson. In the Second World War, certain Naval Ships gained a reputation, like the Bismarck. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck . A notorious Behemoth of it's day, the name is still a by-word for Naval might. So with the Titans. Except, whilst the Bismarck was destroyed...the Titans still go on. For those Guardsmen or Marines versed in the history of such fighting machines, they will know the great victories the God-Machine fighting alongside them brought. They are a massive inspiration! Not only is it 100 feet tall. Not only can it slaughter the enemy on it's own...but it's been doing so for Ten. Thousand. Years.

For those that love science fiction and realistic battles in space, you can't go past the Honor Harrington series - you can even get the first book online for free (as in beer)!

It has epic space battles and there is still a (limited) use for marines - most battles are completed very quickly however.

In WH40K, they talk about being able to make things travel at relativistic speeds - if they could really do this, they could take out a planet with no risk of warning or ability to stop it (or even see it coming!)

A Deepness in the Sky has an excellent sci fi look at this (by Vernor Vinge).

The WH40K book are interesting, and I enjoy many of them - but you have to put your suspension of disbelief WAY back away. I mean WAY back.

I can understand that they need to show races fighting each other in hand to hand combat - and come up with ridiculous situations to force that to happen. Otherwise we would not have a game to play and we'd all be doing a version of BattleFleet Gothic!

;-)

So - IMO, the fluff/background is bent to make it fit the game mechanics - hence sci-fantasy.

Otherwise, as an IG player in a realistic game, I would have a stealthed IG guys with a laser designator on the board and call in several napalm strikes and field ordinance.

Sci-Fi.

I find that although Fantasy inspired, and starting as Fantasy IN SPACE, 40k is able to really push the Sci-Fi aspects, though mainly fluff-wise. Almost reminds me of Dune, for some reason.

GearBoxClock wrote:Sci-Fi.

I find that although Fantasy inspired, and starting as Fantasy IN SPACE, 40k is able to really push the Sci-Fi aspects, though mainly fluff-wise. Almost reminds me of Dune, for some reason.

That would be the Space Crusading aspect of the setting, as well as the Emperor leading legions idea. Also the idea of Death worlds. And Navigators.

All these ideas snagged from the Dune universe and "leveraged" into the 40k universe.

To me, Science Fiction, by its very definition, needs to involve science as an essential plot device. Things like 40K and Star Wars simply don't qualify.

Pariah Press wrote: To me, Science Fiction, by its very definition, needs to involve science as an essential plot device. Things like 40K and Star Wars simply don't qualify.

Absolutely true. By the same token, it's the same reason why I can not stand Sci Fi. There's no heart in Sci Fi, no attachment, no drive or desire for motivation. It's sterile and bland, a palette of grey. Thankfully Sci-Fantasy stands against that and provides a colorful respite.

Soooo... you're just not excited about science, then?

Rymafyr wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: To me, Science Fiction, by its very definition, needs to involve science as an essential plot device. Things like 40K and Star Wars simply don't qualify.

Absolutely true. By the same token, it's the same reason why I can not stand Sci Fi. There's no heart in Sci Fi, no attachment, no drive or desire for motivation. It's sterile and bland, a palette of grey. Thankfully Sci-Fantasy stands against that and provides a colorful respite.

Yeah man it's not like sci-fi provides us with themes like the ethical ramifications of harvesting cloned organs or anything.

Much less self-aware Thinking Machines

There's no heart in Sci Fi, no attachment, no drive or desire for motivation. It's sterile and bland, a palette of grey.

LOL

That's a pretty big call!

You haven't read too many of the fantastic novels available in the genre then? Stranger in a strange land for example? How about the Crysalids? A deepness in the sky? Brave new world? The Gap Into conflict?

There are many excellent character driven SF novels out there. There are also a great deal with very poor characterisation that are still excellent novels - if you like hard science fiction (such as Dragons Egg).

And then there are the space operas - the Honor Harrington series (and most of David Webber's work) falls into this category - good charactarisation (although often only two dimensional characters), however real pulp page turners. Pure entertainment without a great deal of additional thought required.

Star Wars is a Space Opera, quite different from your standard Science Fiction. As the name of the genre suggests, it has more in common with midday Soap Operas than anything by Asimov.

40K is a different kettle of fish again. I believe it is more of a `Space Fantasy' than anything else. As previously stated, only Tau really fit the Sci-Fi style, whereas Tyranid are more of a Horror entry. Everything else is Fantasy, through and through. Come on, I heard about there being a Chaos Titan with a Daemon Canon, which shoots Daemon Princes!! This is not a Penny Arcade comic. Science Fiction is completely out the window with things like this. Many of the armies are heavily focused on religion or mysticism, there are magical elements everywhere, and there are elves, in space, with ninja star-firing guns. If someone released a Fantasy novel with some of the elements in 40K, it would surely be a best seller.

I completely agree. 40K is a Fantasy series given a futuristic, apocalyptic setting.

Elric of Grans wrote:Star Wars is a Space Opera, quite different from your standard Science Fiction. As the name of the genre suggests, it has more in common with midday Soap Operas than anything by Asimov.

It's not that it's soap opera in content or style, it's just a term coined to be analogous to 'soap opera' to remark upon the romanticism and melodramatic nature of ray gun waving, massive space ship battles and super power stuff of some fiction. So intended to be derogatory but it's not always taken this way today. Star Wars being space opera is probably best described as 'cowboys in space'. I like Star Wars, but that's what it is.

40K is a bit like Doctor Who, in the sense that it is SF in a loose sense, but it's a mish mash of themes, it has hard SF, military SF, fantasy, horror, steampunk, etc. The 40k universe is inspired from all kinds of things, look at the imperial guard, nearly every army is taken from one of our near contemporary history, russian, germans, british etc, the whole universe of the game is plastered with stuff taken from books and film of all genres, which is why it looks like a mixed bag.

Rymafyr wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: To me, Science Fiction, by its very definition, needs to involve science as an essential plot device. Things like 40K and Star Wars simply don't qualify.

Absolutely true. By the same token, it's the same reason why I can not stand Sci Fi. There's no heart in Sci Fi, no attachment, no drive or desire for motivation. It's sterile and bland, a palette of grey. Thankfully Sci-Fantasy stands against that and provides a colorful respite.

That's a frankly amazing thing to say. I mean what? Have you read anything by the like of Asimov, Heinlein, Vance? Surely you can't claim the works of Jack Vance are "sterile and bland"?!?!

GearBoxClock wrote:
I find that although Fantasy inspired, and starting as Fantasy IN SPACE, 40k is able to really push the Sci-Fi aspects, though mainly fluff-wise. Almost reminds me of Dune, for some reason.

Pariah Press wrote: To me, Science Fiction, by its very definition, needs to involve science as an essential plot device.

I would use that definition only for Hard Science in the modern sense. To me, the seminal piece of 60s scifi is "Dangerous visions". A compilation by Harlan Ellison, that contains short stories of nearly all the major scifi authors of the 50s and early 60s. Most of the stories that are not completely obsolete (or just say "overcome by reality") deal with social issues arising from scientific advance. So I'd say that the definition ought to be extended.

Rymafyr wrote:By the same token, it's the same reason why I can not stand Sci Fi. There's no heart in Sci Fi, no attachment, no drive or desire for motivation. It's sterile and bland, a palette of grey. Thankfully Sci-Fantasy stands against that and provides a colorful respite.

A brave generalization, I'd say. And one that is too broad. Depending on whether you prefer character- or setting-driven stories, you might prefer some styles of scifi to others, I'd say. Some deal with the technology itself, some with people's interaction. Cyberpunk was a whole genre that dealt with the criticism of how uncontrolled science influenced people's lives.

Personally I see the problem of sci fi as it being a lot of work: If it is really good, it has a good premise and interesting characters and an interesting conflict. Sci fi works pretty well as a short story because you can skimp on one or two of the three, usually character or conflict ;-)

Fantasy can be done much easier, though good world building for fantasy books can be hard work, too. "On thud and blunder" is a pretty popular essay around here that deals with many common mistakes. But to me it seems as most fantasy I like cheated by using real world examples and adding only slightly to them - my personal hero Guy Gavriel Kay does this a lot.

stonefox wrote:Yeah man it's not like sci-fi provides us with themes like the ethical ramifications of harvesting cloned organs or anything.

Good example. Yet depending on the reader that might be construed as bland. The main problem with good, critical sci fi is that it becomes outdated easily. Because it has to deal with issues that are in the near future.

Those that say cyberpunk is dead do so because they say that the whole issues of technology moving away from the people towards the corporations, their increase in power, their domination of international politics and their intrusion into people's lives has already happened. Just much more benign and with less neon and chrome than expected.

So depending on the topic, several readers will consider a topic bland that you or me might find interesting - because they already dealt with it. Or because they cannot relate at all, if the topic is too far removed.

tallmantim wrote:
You haven't read too many of the fantastic novels available in the genre then? Stranger in a strange land for example? How about the Crysalids? A deepness in the sky? Brave new world? The Gap Into conflict?

Wow. I would not have called "Stranger in a strange land" fantastic. To me, it is a great and successful attempt to create something pretty alien. And its Heinlein droning about libertarianism again. Both good stuff (unless you've read the complete Heinlein, because the second issue pops up a wee bit often...). But I would not call it "endearing" or "involving". It's a classic with important issues, but I would not recommend it to someone who considers scifi "bland". Same for "Brave new world". Gotta read "Deepness in the sky" though, this is the second time it has popped up in a discussion.

good charactarisation (although often only two dimensional characters)

I wonder how that works. Can you explain?

Howard A Treesong wrote:40K is a bit like Doctor Who, in the sense that it is SF in a loose sense, but it's a mish mash of themes, it has hard SF, military SF, fantasy, horror, steampunk, etc. The 40k universe is inspired from all kinds of things, look at the imperial guard, nearly every army is taken from one of our near contemporary history, russian, germans, british etc, the whole universe of the game is plastered with stuff taken from books and film of all genres, which is why it looks like a mixed bag.

This might be also because of the close relation of many of the writers to the 2000AD comic publishing thing. I guess the fact that comics deal with issues on rather limited space leads to more willingness to explore different styles and integrate them, too.

But yes, pure genius, that.

Gotta give Doctor Who a chance, some time...

Interesting discussion. My amazon-wishlist is filling up again ;-)

One of the other things I really like about 40ks setting, is that to my knowledge, most futuristic settings have man overcome his somewhat murderous nature.

40k has had the species embrace it. Racist (well, against Mutants), Xenophobic.....if we don't like it, we kill it. And it's planet if we are really offended.

Plus, with the decaying technology, there is limited Deus Ex Machina in the novels, another thing I like! I mean, unlike Star Trek, I doubt a Warp Drive implosion can be prevented simply by getting your friendly local, one of a kind, 'isn't it lucky he's on board' Android to stuff his knob in the lighter socket....and all the better for it!

OTher examples....'Bugger. We're all blinded by that thingy wot we saw' 'Ah, but Captain! You're forgetting my eyes have been spazzy since birth, so I can still see' 'Cor, what a stroke of luck, having all these unique people in the right place at the right time'

Tierlieb wrote:

tallmantim wrote:
You haven't read too many of the fantastic novels available in the genre then? Stranger in a strange land for example? How about the Crysalids? A deepness in the sky? Brave new world? The Gap Into conflict?

Wow. I would not have called "Stranger in a strange land" fantastic. To me, it is a great and successful attempt to create something pretty alien. And its Heinlein droning about libertarianism again. Both good stuff (unless you've read the complete Heinlein, because the second issue pops up a wee bit often...). But I would not call it "endearing" or "involving". It's a classic with important issues, but I would not recommend it to someone who considers scifi "bland". Same for "Brave new world". Gotta read "Deepness in the sky" though, this is the second time it has popped up in a discussion.

Hi,

These novels are not noted as being "easy", but rather as excellent forms of writing - period. They are all well fleshed out pieces of writing in a science fiction setting.

LOL - do agree about Heinlein however - he does tend to bang on a bit about the same requirements for a utopic society!

;-)

good charactarisation (although often only two dimensional characters)

I wonder how that works. Can you explain?

The characters are reasonably well fleshed out and have a great background, however once they get rolling momentum keeps their personality on pretty much the same path. Webber also tends to deal with his characters as gods - they are indefatigable heros.

Then you have the Gap Into Conflict series by Stephen Donaldson, crossing over from his excellent fantasy series. In his books the science is shaky (a gun that sends out a black hole, colapsing an asteroid that then somehow has the mass to draw in other spacecraft that were passing by?), this can all be forgiven however due to the excellent characterisations. The victim becomes a heroine, the saviour becomes a villain, the villain becomes virtuous - all perfectly worked through the story.

tallmantim wrote:LOL - do agree about Heinlein however - he does tend to bang on a bit about the same requirements for a utopic society!

Some people call Heinlein a fascist and militaristic, almost solely based on Starship Troopers it seems. But they are wrong, his politics are quite difficult to judge, what he really thinks and when he's playing devil's advocate isn't at all clear, some work is right wing, but there's also a streat of liberalism in it too. Compare Farnham's Freehold, Starship Troopers and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress among other. But yes, some of his stuff can come across as being preachy.

So erm, basically this is a thread about the definitions of sci fi and sci fantasy? Ok, have fun.

To link from tvtropes, 40K is fundamentally a Fantasy Kitchen Sink IN SPACE!

Don't get me wrong...Sci Fi related stuff really used to be my thing. It's really become blase' to me the past several years. I'm by no means saying all Sci Fi is garbage, my statement is just how I personally feel concerning the genre. It just doesn't inspire me. I'd really like to know about when the change came or what happened to facilitate it.

Take for example the New BSG. I think it's an excellent show. I love how they've updated it from the 70's version and how they justified things like the 'outdated' tech they use. But I've never watched any more than 5 min of a show and only saw the TV movie in it's entirety. I'd much rather watch the campy 70's version because it's more fantastical.

Doctor Who I still revere and love...despite all the craziness it's seen

And don't get me started on Star Wars, I know what happened there...Thank you George for taking one of the best 'bad guys' and making him into nothing more than a P-whipped baby killer.

HI folks.
Thanks for the intelegent and informative posts.

I suppose the real crux of the disjoint in gamer views of 40k ,is a basic split in core game development methods, and gamers expectations of these 2 types of development.

Narative game development , telling cool stories with (fantastical?) settings and events, and then writing rules around this core narrative.
This is purley a game and need not follow any expectations /preconceptions/conventions.
Narative game development need have NO relavance to anything, as long as the players enjoy playing the game !
40k seems to fall into this catagory, IMO.

Simulation game development,simulating a basic actual events to give intuative game play that follows players expectaitions.
This is usualy developed from the ground up, game mechanics first , fictional setting /events etc are placed over the top.
A great example of a simualtion development is found in Blood Bowl, Epic , Warmaster etc.
People that think 40k should be some form of simulation, and follow expectations are usualy dissapointed with the current rules.

Those players that 'know' 40k is about 'telling a cool story 'with cool looking models and scenery .Are by enlarge quite happy with GW's 40 Sci Fantasy ....(Warhammer in space with lots more guns).

Those players that think 40k is a' tactical wargame suitable for competative play' usualy end up dissapointed and disillusioned with 40k.

Is it possible to keep the 'space opera ' feel of 40k , while using more intuative 'simulation ' type rule sets?

Or would more 'simulation type rules' force 40k to be 'pure Sci-fi'?

I suppose the main question is;-
Is the 'fantasy' element in 40k because Rogue Trader used Warhammer 3rd ed rules and basic races.
Or would 40k still be sci fantasy with a different rule set?(A more straight forward simulation type rule set.)

TTFN,
Lanrak.