The question isn't whether something counts as sci-fi or fantasy, in some academic sense, but how badly is it going to throw off your groove if you see it in your game? If you show up to a Forgotten Realms game, and see an alien space-warble from the vermouth nebula, then that doesn't feel right; if it's presented as a chaos beast from the far realms, then that isn't going to break your expectations as much. Even if it's otherwise the exact same thing.
If you're talking to a demon, and she mentions how demons came to this world ten thousand years ago in a space ship, then that's kind of like "doing in the wizard". It's not a nice thing to just spring on an unsuspecting player.
I just quoted to say that I think this bears repeating. My major issue, the reason I voted for #4, is one of throwing people off when playing the game. When I'm running games or looking at settings or anything for GAMING then I absolutely try to keep scifi out of my fantasy. I've learned over my life playing that I don't enjoy it. I didn't like when the one player in my game had guns, didn't enjoy playing in a d20 future/modern game, don't even like scifi elements like spelljammers, eberron and psionics. They throw me off.
I think it is very important to my enjoyment for gaming to keep those elements separate. Now with that said I have purposefully tried blending them on occasion and I'm working on two DnD-rules scifi-settings. But in both of those I'm dropping the fantasy aspect and making it pure scifi.
Now, to completely disagree with this I very much enjoy when scifi and fantasy are blended OUTSIDE of gaming. I like star wars and fringe and other media where they are mixed. But I think that they have to do a very good job when doing this or else it all goes out the window. That is my problem with later fringe. They start with a hard scifi universe and just start getting further and further away, mixing in more random fantastical elements that just start to ruin it for me. Some blending can work but when it is deluded to mud I find it is much less effective.
And on the topic of Star Wars - I think it is space opera. I'm not going to go into why I think that or why that term specifically. It is too much to discuss here and now, but I've seen several analyses on the subject and I'm fairly positive it is space opera like few others have managed. But as a point of contention, back when Star Wars was first brought up (a couple pages ago), one side said scifi one said fantasy. It is both, which I'll get to in a moment. But the major elements each side raises has to do with
which star wars we are talking about. The first three movies, and parts of episode 1, are all heavy on the fantasy. The second trilogy (eps 1-3) are heavier on scifi. One trilogy dealt more in princesses, black dragons, knights, honour, chivalry and sacrifice - usually fantasy elements. The other in focused on cloak and dagger, technology winning out, assassins and espionage, and armies of clones - clearly more scifi.
So, yeah, I think there is certainly three views on this, but the poll only reflects two. There is fantasy, scifi, and BOTH. Both is distinct enough to be neither of the other two, while taking elements of them. And if a game is focused on both then it can certainly work. The problem I see (and so did Obryn with his many hands) is when you do either and introduce elements of the other - that is tragedy. Like having a rom-com and an action - no one really appreciates when the tone changes from one to the other midway through. The same goes here. Barriers Peaks works (never actually played or seen it myself but I'm extrapolating) because people understand the scifi elements going in. The same goes for those post-apocalyptic games. But my players won't be happy with me if I reveal the big bad isn't really a demon, he is an alien from Alpha Centuri and he needs their organs for biological diversity, instead of zombie hordes that they thought. It just completely changes the tone.
