Yes, former is usually listed as sci-fi and latter as fantasy, because ... Well ... The entire point of sci-fi is trying to at least be plausible in some way, shape or form, while the point of fantasy is to be, basically, pulled from your ass. Setting doesn't really matter.

Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, and if Star Wars bothers you so much, feel free to accept the midichlorians BS.

Who decides what's plausible and what isn't anyway? Telepathy and Telekinesis - plausible? How far from The Force?

I hear you, for example my most favourite genre is steam punk...and I cant really find that many good games from that field...what I would give for amazing steam punk game.

When I was studying Wells and Verne as an English student, we were given the notion that sci-fi is fiction mixed with ACTUAL science. Over the years I've come to the opinion that this is kind of a subjective and unreliable definition but I'll lay it down as I was taught it.

Sit down, this is a long one.

Jules Verne was a sci-fi writer. All of his machines and whatever else while maybe not possible in his time were all strongly rooted in proven scientific theory. If you had every bit of necissary tech at the time, you could have built a real Nautilus and it should have actually worked. Now a days they actually do work. Any Navy man worth his salt (bad pun) will regale you with the eery simularities between the Nautilus and a modern day nuclear attack sub.

Anyway, H.G. Wells was a contemporary of Verne and Wells called himself a sci-fi writer and as a result Vernon despised Wells with every ounce of his being. Wells never bothered with theory. Read "The Time Machine"; he doesn't even really describe it! He just says, 'Hey look a time machine. It travels through time. Fuck it!' Verne felt this made Wells a fraud because his storys had zero hard science in them and thus regarded Wells as a pure fantasy writer.

Like I said, this is not my theory, just one that I have had perscribed to me, that from time to time I like to mull over, like when I'm reading Jurassic Park (which fits this models definition of sci-fi) verses Logan's Run (which fits the models definition of fantasy).

You know it's not up to you to decide whether a setting is based upon reality, it's up to scriptwriters, and those wrote a story about 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.' Star Wars isn't even trying to be an actual science fiction. It's purely made up and it doesn't have any basis in reality whatsoever, therefore, it's fantasy.

When something is consciously based upon reality and when it's trying to create world and technology which does seem plausible, then it's sci-fi. You could argue about fantasy with sci-fi elements and vice-versa, but that's about it, really. And I just don't get what's so horribly wrong with Star Wars being classified as fantasy, seriously. I also don't understand why should sci-fi be limited to space ships and modern technology and fantasy to medieval setting with magick, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

They may not be widespread but there are many RPGs not in a typical fantasy setting.
Alpha Protocol
Anachronox
Arcanum
Deus Ex
Fallout series
Freedom Force series
Mass Effect (I would say series, but 2 and 3 being RPGs is debatable)
Phantasy Star series
Shin Megami Tensei series
Shadowrun (Returns coming later this year)
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

I would like to see more modern RPGs like Alpha Protocol and SMT though.

Star Wars does seem more like sci-fi with large fantasy elements than the other way around to me.

Nobody said anything about fantasy being limited to medieval settings. There is plenty of fantasy set in the modern times as well. And times when real magic coincides with futuristic stuff like robots and space ship (which aren't powered by magic) I'd say can be both science fiction and fantasy. And hey, it doesn't take much to explain magic in sci-fi terms anyway.

And you know what, the best science-fiction is not about the science, but about how the science affects people. And you don't necessarily need the most plausible explanation of the science for that kind of story. "Blah blah new scientific discovery leads to free energy - now what happens to the every day man, to society, to nations, etc." Or "Blah blah an ancient magical artifact/spell is discovered which can provide unlimited energy - now what happens to the every day man, to society, to nations, etc."

Only difference is the former is likely to lead to some quantum instability threatening the Earth, while the latter is likely to lead to pissed off Demons wondering who is stealing their Hellfire :)

It does take a lot, actually. For instance, dark matter in Mass Effect seems very much like 'Fantasy element' to me and I would never even dream of calling that a sci-fi one. That's not the point tho. See, the problem with your definition is that sci-fi becomes pointless and everything can be as well classified as fantasy without the distinction I have outlined to you. Or sci-fi, after all Lord of the Rings does take place on Earth and Gandalf's technology is incredibly advanced, definitely sci-fi.

Your position seem to be that 'it's all about characters!' and I can understand that, but for me, the futuristic outline of 'How things could be if...' is very compelling, and calling completely fictional setting sci-fi undermines its merits completely. There is a fairly thin line between sci-fi and fantasy already and removing the only thing that does give both genres a certain meaning and appel pretty much merges them into one.

FR was, in a way, the beginning of the end. But it's lousy with medieval Europe. Greenwood wrote a lot of articles, editorials, notes, pages from the mages, realmslore etc to ensure the power in FR stays where (in Greenwood's opinion) it belongs, that is with Elminster's sex partners and hereditary nobility. I hate that, I really do; fantasy should be quadratic or GTFO. But the important distinction between FR and the recent cheapass settings is that Greenwood actually put in effort! Volumes of effort, in fact. He wrote histories and dynasties and power structures and law codices to prevent adventurers from being awesome. Yep, there's a lot to hate. But no one can justifiably say the old perv was lazy.
While it's true that Moorcock did not vanish overnight, the good tropes were recognizably present in the late 80s - early 90s. Ultima, Wizardry 6-7; Might and Magic lasted until 1998. The most imaginative of recent "official" fantasy RPG settings is what, Eberron? And yet Baker threw his hands up in the air and went out of the way to be a cockblocking low-level bore. My only hope is for WotC to get their head out of wherever is that they've stuck it and make use of MtG settings (which are awesome), but with the reverse Midas touch that the D&D brand leadership possesses it's unlikely Hasbro will let them anywhere near the cashcow.

Gandalf doesn't need technology. He and the rest of the "wizards" are Maia, which can be considered the equivalent of Stargate's ascended Ancients temporarily taking mortal form :)

... which is definitely a fantasy element. Not that StarGate is really rooted in science fiction to begin with.

Yes, I think we have agreed on the fact that the line between sci-fi and fantasy is thin, thank you for repeating what I have said, fairly nice of you. Doesn't change the fact that without its defining attribute, sci-fi might as well be fantasy, and if this attribute is being ignored, sci-fi as a genre can be dropped altogether as it's completely pointless, or it gets reduced to simply being 'futuristic fantasy', which is most definitely not why I love sci-fi. Now if you don't reply with something more constructive than yet another fantasy element in otherwise sci-fi work, I'll just drop the topic.

Eh, potentially we're in danger here of worrying too much about definitions instead of just having fun with games :) How much science you need before it becomes fantasy is kinda subjective, and should probably stay that way :)

Back on topic - 'traditional' fantasy makes an easy setting for games as a larger potential audience will be comfortable with the tropes involved whilst at the same time having broad enough boundaries such that many different tales can be told. Still, there are old things like Wasteland and Mines of Titan that eschew such settings as well as more modern fare like the Valkyria Chronicles games (an alternate WWII scenario) and - as someone else mentioned - the Shin Megami Tensei games. The Persona games from that series, for example, are all based around a normal Japanese High School (although I've watched too much anime to believe such a thing actually exists) where a single event - whether it be rumours becoming truth or people becoming aware of a 'hidden' hour of the day - sets the stage for the fantastical elements of the game.

So really, TinyE, are you looking for suggestions of RPGs that avoid the traditional fantasy settings/tropes?

No, not really. I just wanted to open up a monologue regarding an observation I had while playing Ultima Underworld and thinking how cool would this be on a space ship or something. I didn't know it would turn into a steel cage fight to death match over what is and is not sci-fi but I'm not complaining and I have had an absolute ball reading everyone's post in here. As a bonus I did learn a few previously unknown titles that when I get through all the stuff I picked up on GOG for my birthday I will look into. I should be able to get to that in 20 years or so! :P