I Just Realized The Elder Scrolls can be considered Sci-Fi

[Eclectic Dreck]

It isn't Sci-Fi in the slightest simply because the genre is defined by speculation and extrapolation of existing scientific concepts. For example, while there is no narrative difference between the Star Trek Teleporter and any of a variety of spells in D&D, the act is justified differently. In D&D, it is the result of a wizard manipulating the Weave - an energy inherent in the universe where in Star Trek it's the result of breaking a person down into a different form, projecting it as pure energy, and then reconstituting them at the other end. The difference, then, is that Star Trek offers an an explanation about the way the process works. If D&D wanted to do the same, it could say that (for example) the Weave was Dark Energy and a wizard was using some kind of device to direct that energy to a particular end. Mass Effect does this exact thing with spells simply being the result of modification of mass fields allowed for thanks to the existence of a mysterious element (Element Zero).

Even when it comes to sci-fi though there are degrees of qualification. Some settings have very little explanation for how things work; Doctor Who is effectively fantasy since nothing of consequence is ever explained in a rigorous way. By contrast, the work of Arthur C Clark is a very hard edged science fiction which rarely relies on plot magic beyond the notion that in the future, a device will be possible to build that we can only theorize about now.

 

[LadyLightning]

Well, teeeechnically we have the Dwarven creations that don't necessarily run on magic, so ... it's more Steampunk-ish ... and you can certainly twist it to turn it into Sci-Fi, but ... personally, I'd stick with the general Fantasy, and nowhere near actual Science, thus Sci-Fi. So ... nope.

inb4 Chim. Anyway, if you refer to Chim, the Elder Scrolls is actually a dream just taking inside someones head.

Depending on your view on D/Aedra, that whole "Mundus/Nirn is just a dream" thingy may actually be the case in the Elder Scrolls lore, btw.

The Dwemer centurions do indeed work on the principles of magic as recognized by the rest of Nirn - specifically the Enchantment school. They're powered by the soul gems they drop, some of which have a soul inside and others which don't. We even see broken-down centurions that stopped working before the player got there, which implies that, just like a magic sword, the soul gem powering the centurion doesn't last forever.

 

[LadyLightning]

It isn't Sci-Fi in the slightest simply because the genre is defined by speculation and extrapolation of existing scientific concepts. For example, while there is no narrative difference between the Star Trek Teleporter and any of a variety of spells in D&D, the act is justified differently. In D&D, it is the result of a wizard manipulating the Weave - an energy inherent in the universe where in Star Trek it's the result of breaking a person down into a different form, projecting it as pure energy, and then reconstituting them at the other end. The difference, then, is that Star Trek offers an an explanation about the way the process works. If D&D wanted to do the same, it could say that (for example) the Weave was Dark Energy and a wizard was using some kind of device to direct that energy to a particular end. Mass Effect does this exact thing with spells simply being the result of modification of mass fields allowed for thanks to the existence of a mysterious element (Element Zero).

Even when it comes to sci-fi though there are degrees of qualification. Some settings have very little explanation for how things work; Doctor Who is effectively fantasy since nothing of consequence is ever explained in a rigorous way. By contrast, the work of Arthur C Clark is a very hard edged science fiction which rarely relies on plot magic beyond the notion that in the future, a device will be possible to build that we can only theorize about now.

The Weave is purely a Forgotten Realms thing and is by no means inherent to D&D as a whole, only its least enjoyable campaign setting. The way spells of the Teleportation subschool are explained in D&D is that the caster is travelling through some sort of planar rift where both ends open onto the prime material plane, as opposed to some other plane of existence, like the Nine Hells, or one of the Elemental Planes.

Transporter technology in Star Trek is explained as breaking down an object or creature into its constituent molecules, transforming those molecules into energy, projecting that energy as a beam, and re-forming the original person or object at the other side. A recurring concept in Star Trek technology is the idea that energy and matter are no longer separate things - that we've discovered how to convert matter into energy and vice versa. It's how holodecks and replicators work.

The difference is this:
In D&D, it's assumed that spellcasters teleport by manipulating extraplanar energies, according to a cosmology that cannot exist in our reality - the idea that the world is a material plane formed by the intersection of the four elemental planes of fire, water, air and earth. It's pure fantasy.

In Star Trek, engineers teleport by applying scientific theory (matter/energy conversion, molecular reconstruction of matter) which was extrapolated from real-world scientific theory (matter is made of tiny molecules, which are clusters of atoms). We don't have anything like transporter technology today, but it's feasible that, in the future, we very well might. It could very well exist in our reality, once our technology becomes sufficiently advanced. This is science-fiction - a fictional look into what science and technology might be able to do someday.

 

[Altorin]

this is why sci-fi and fantasy tend to share a shelf in book stores and libraries, but it is ultimately silly. To me, Sci-fi has always depicted a world that could exist, whereas fantasy depicts a world that, given our current understanding of science, could not.