Sci-Fi vs Fantasy

[Riedquat]

Sure, they can overlap, but you can overlap any genres. "Both dealing with stuff that isn't real" is far too broad a brush with which to sweep them up. Hard science fiction certainly doesn't overlap with fantasy; at it's hardest it can play with real scientific concepts without having to invent anything (other than maybe saying some engineering challenges are solved). Put it this way - before Apollo 13 happened for real if someone had invented it as a story, even just the day before, it would be science fiction.

On the Mass Effect / Dragon Age story, well, if you break it down to its most basic essentials you can put most stories into just about any genre.

[Fianna]

Suppose you have a story where someone discovers a strange-looking, primitive, humanoid creature living in a remote corner of Siberia. That story could easily be classified as hard science fiction, since a heretofore unknown branch of hominids surviving into the modern day, while unlikely, is well within the realm of scientific possibility. However, if characters in the story start calling this creature a troll, then suddenly it's a fantasy story.

Or take the movie Groundhog Day. No explanation is ever given for why Phil Connors keeps living the same day over and over. Maybe he's being taught a lesson by some divine entity. Or, if you like, replace "divine entity" with super-advanced alien. Maybe he passed through some sort of technobabble tachyon surged, or he crossed over into another dimension. Maybe (as in the original script) he's simply been cursed by his ex-girlfriend. Or maybe there is no explanation, and time getting shuffled around like this just happens sometimes for absolutely no reason. So is it fantasy, or science fiction?

[Nealithi]

Suppose you have a story where someone discovers a strange-looking, primitive, humanoid creature living in a remote corner of Siberia. That story could easily be classified as hard science fiction, since a heretofore unknown branch of hominids surviving into the modern day, while unlikely, is well within the realm of scientific possibility. However, if characters in the story start calling this creature a troll, then suddenly it's a fantasy story.

Or take the movie Groundhog Day. No explanation is ever given for why Phil Connors keeps living the same day over and over. Maybe he's being taught a lesson by some divine entity. Or, if you like, replace "divine entity" with super-advanced alien. Maybe he passed through some sort of technobabble tachyon surged, or he crossed over into another dimension. Maybe (as in the original script) he's simply been cursed by his ex-girlfriend. Or maybe there is no explanation, and time getting shuffled around like this just happens sometimes for absolutely no reason. So is it fantasy, or science fiction?

Hmm, I would debate the naming of the hominids as 'trolls' makes the story fantasy in and of itself. Most people don't go around spouting scientific names for species. They use common ones. Researchers might find a nice suitable latin name for such a species. And the media drop the label Troll on them for marketing sake. Now if they suddenly had the Tolkien disadvantages or D&D style regeneration then I would say it moved to an odd flavour of fantasy.

Ground Hog day because of the mechanic is an interesting concept but I think would fall under modern fantasy no matter the cause. Since the basic rules are the day resetting in the morning even if the only one who could recall any of it died.

I think the problem is the settings may be mislabelled. Science fiction is often a speculation on what could be. How do we morally deal with creating artificial intelligence and what are some pitfalls? irobot. Or we have genetic engineering how could we change society with this? Gattica. A long serial like Star Trek probably needs to be measured on an episode by episode level. Because some times they are very strict on trying to be right or explore an idea. And others it is hand waves and pixie magic. I am looking at you Q.
Star Wars however I don't think is science fantasy. I think it is Tech Fantasy. Basically the way people see steampunk and similar ideas as trappings then tell the story you want in it. Tech is the setting, fantasy is the story type.

[PerrySimm]

Suppose you have a story where someone discovers a strange-looking, primitive, humanoid creature living in a remote corner of Siberia. That story could easily be classified as hard science fiction, since a heretofore unknown branch of hominids surviving into the modern day, while unlikely, is well within the realm of scientific possibility. However, if characters in the story start calling this creature a troll, then suddenly it's a fantasy story.

Or take the movie Groundhog Day. No explanation is ever given for why Phil Connors keeps living the same day over and over. Maybe he's being taught a lesson by some divine entity. Or, if you like, replace "divine entity" with super-advanced alien. Maybe he passed through some sort of technobabble tachyon surged, or he crossed over into another dimension. Maybe (as in the original script) he's simply been cursed by his ex-girlfriend. Or maybe there is no explanation, and time getting shuffled around like this just happens sometimes for absolutely no reason. So is it fantasy, or science fiction?

Groundhog Day definitely has overlap - mainly fantasy but with some minor science elements. There is at least an attempt to understand what is going on with logic and experimentation, but ultimately the story relies on some unexplained force.

As for trolls, well, not discounting you could do science fiction about them, but yes, it'd be an uphill battle. Especially if you tried to pull a Stargate and cast ancient stories within the same science fiction framework.

[Independent George]

I think many of you are treating all of fantasy as if it hasn't changed in the last 80 years; many of the things being characterized as integral to the genre really hasn't actually been the norm in decades. To use one example, Pratchett's Discworld really took off when it shifted (in the early 90s) away from traditional fantasy into an exploration of how an industrial revolution within a high-magic setting, with all of its unexpected implications.

Or to cite arguably the biggest name in modern fantasy, let's look at how Brandon Sanderson's rules of magic* work if you exchange the word 'magic' with 'tech':

1. An author’s ability to solve conflict with tech is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said tech.
2. Limitations > Powers; the limitations of a tech system are more interesting than its capabilities. What the tech can't do is more interesting than what it can.
3. Expand on what you have already, before you add something new. A brilliant tech system for a book is less often one with a thousand different powers and abilities -- and is more often a tech system with relatively few powers that the author has considered in depth.

The point being, the things that create verisimilitude in sci-fi do the exact same thing in fantasy - and whether it is successful or not, and the implications of it, have nothing to do with whether we are talking about tech or magic. I'm not sure the difference between the two genres are all that clear anymore, if it ever was.

*that's the abridged version; I highly recommend reading the full descriptions of rules one, two, and three. I am not a writer, but those three essays have completely changed the way I see all of the works of fiction I consume, regardless of media. It's a great look into the craft of writing, and now that I've read it, I just can't unsee it anymore.

ETA: I also want to add that whether it is science fiction or fantasy, the human element always takes precedence over the system. It doesn't matter how clever the system is, it is how it interacts with humanity that makes it meaningful.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Brandon Sandersen is begging to be worked over with a sockfull of quarters and a haphazardly broken birch branch.

[Alinis]

Who is Brandon Sandersen? I've been reading fantasy for decades I don't think I've ever heard of them but then there are so many subgenres of fantasy as well as so many authors its likely easy to overlook one.

[LittleRaven]

Who is Brandon Sandersen?

Brandon Sanderson is an author and professor of creative writing at BYU. He's best known for finishing Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which is a shame, because his own fantasy works are much, MUCH better than anything Jordan ever wrote. (the exception being 'The Eye of the World')

[PerrySimm]

Well, if SFF readers had a nickel from every Utahan touted as the world's greatest writer of genre fiction, they'd each have 15 cents and an obvious conclusion.

That doesn't mean Sanderson is incorrect to advocate limits on Applied Phlebotinum. It is, however, a little inaccurate to say that a couple pieces of common sense storytelling advice are world-changing drops of wisdom. The notion that tech-tech needs limits is fairly apparent to anyone who ever saw an episode of Voyager.

[Deledrius]

The notion that tech-tech needs limits is fairly apparent to anyone who ever saw an episode of Voyager.

Or basically any long-running series of stories (TV, games, books) that rely on this. Invariably the tech's limitations get removed at some point "to open up new stories" and it's usually a jump-the-shark moment for the franchise's drama as the stakes disappear or are inflated to ridiculous levels in compensation.