dragonewt

Some good miniatures that go well with Dragon Lines: Qing Long, Cyan Dragon Kakita Shura Yi Ling, Cathayan warrior Osato, Shaolin Monk Jin Shi, Golden Lion Guinea Pig Samurai

That was unexpected.

I am considering doing something like this. Edit: My plan to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads unfolds...

These source books might provide some useful Sci-Fi material. They are for "D100", and so might work well with BRP: No Man's Land - From SSDC, Inc. Silent Wars - From SSDC, Inc. Other SSDC, Inc. Material More on Battlelords here: SSDC Battlelords.

As an alternative to me bringing Godwin's Law into effect, does anyone have any thoughts on the Cthulhu Rising classic SF monograph? - Review of Cthulhu Rising at Stargazer's World.

Does this one count? Review of Cthulhu Rising classic SF monograph over at Stargazer's World - Review: Cthulhu Rising.

This makes an interesting contrast with the conflict between the "Yangs" and the "Kohms" in the TOS episode "The Omega Glory" - Wikipedia Link.

Here is a site with some interesting Sci-Fi oriented creatures (suitable for most genres). The stat block ranges are close to those used in BRP. The site: RPG Creatures (It might be worth adding this site to the BRP Central links page.)

With lightsabers!

For those who only look at the surface, the BRP Gold Book perhaps does hide the elegant simplicity and consistentcy of BRP's core mechanic. Eschew obfuscation.

The Old Ones vs. The Young Ones? Rick the Anarchist Cultist: "That's just typical! Five minutes before the most important party of my life and the house is destroyed by a giant tentacled polyp." Vyvyan: "Oh dear. This calls for a very special blend of psychology ... and EXTREME VIOLENCE!" (Apologies for the Thread Derailment)

Never forget: Cthulhu Mythos and Hello Kitty. That has a nice ring to it, for a new campaign... Or a variation of Lost, anyone? Hmmm, or Lord of the Flies. Poor Piggy.

Ghost in the Shell (Although not really Space Opera). There is a D20 oriented source book for it. While at the Serena Dawn site, have a look at the Alien source material (Fuzion rules). The source material for Lightspeed might also be of interest. It is a generic collection of several well known genres and worlds (with the serial numbers filed off) (Fuzion rules): Lightspeed.

Maybe this: BaSIC-Bestiary. Although it seems to be a collection consisting of just slightly more than the fundamentals.

Wow! Where did you get your copy?

Just tell her that circumstances are a lot better now, and now you won't be meeting up with some other men in a hotel room. That will win her confidence and trust.

New to my Gloranthan collection; these make excellent Pralori Elk Hsunchen: Mounted. Wyrd. Hunter (Or even Harek himself). Other miniatures with good Gloranthan potential can also be found HERE.

Here is one of my favourites: Edit: Another plug for Dragon Lines (Where the Jedi obtained their Fu).

Given the confusion and chaos, this sounds like a flying polyp conspiracy. You need http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWT07iRvI9M.

More inspiration with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq89WxIFlbU. Although I am not sure of its exact genre.

I was saying that if genres were statically defined, and writers stayed within a strict genre definition, other genres would not be created. Genres are an illusion, but can provide convenient single points of reference compared spelling out most of the common elements all the time. Boundaries are an artificial reference that help define a known and agreed (or assumed) set of ideas. The exact nature of the set may vary, however, at least there are some common elements that most people will agree on, even though these change over time, culture and geography. However, for some, these sets provide a useful reference point. Some of these set definitions may be created through marketing ploys, but others are certainly created through a need to communicate and simplify communication. When someone says "I am running a Call of Cthulhu game", you have a reasonable idea of what that game may encompass, without me having to describe every facet and concept, even though the exact nature of the individual interpretation in play may vary. The irony is that by categorizing something, we loose flexibility is describing something (assuming no further elaboration), yet at the same time trying to ease communication. Although, another irony, where assumptions regarding a definition differ, this can also cause issues with communication. By convention, when I say "chair", you know what I mean (dependent on culture and experience). However, it is easier for me to say "chair" as opposed to describing the structure and nature of a chair all the time.

If people wrote for and and specifically targeted a particular genre, new genres would not be created.

How do I express a common (possibly known by others) combination of elements using only one or two words (point of reference)?

If I run a "sci-fi" game session and ask people to play in it (or recommend a book), what type of language or expression do we use to communicate the type of game play and focus? How do people know if the game session with be of the type of sci-fi they expect?

The other consideration that provides an illusion of difference is applied realism. For example, heroic vs gritty. Saving Private Ryan was based on real and modern technology with a gritty tone, however, other war movies with the same background technology and history can be more heroic, where heroes can succeed at otherwise statistically improbable feats. I am sure many of you can think of examples of technologically realistic sci-fi with a heroic (unrealistic) tone, compared to examples of fantasy sci-fi with a gritty and realistic tone. The combinations are many and varied. Which provides a variety of genres that require some form of unique identification (sub classification?) in order to be referenced and communicated. On a related discussion, think of how the many anime conventions extend and modify the scope of both sci-fi and fantasy genres. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke