some questions about "Fantasy"

[Seth L. Blumberg]

How about a roleplaying game based on a re-imagined version of the Narnia stories by C.S. Lewiss? How would a roleplaying game in which all the PCs are human children work? What's realy important in the Narnia stories, and how would you implement a rules system to model it?

I played in just such a game at AmberCon X in 2000. More than a dozen players, two GMs. Naturally, it was a Fortune-free system.

As I recall, you chose your age first, then divided a certain number of points between Mind, Body and Spirit. Age determined the base scores in those three areas; older characters had higher base Mind and Body, lower base Spirit. Points not spent on stats could be set aside for magic items (exactly what form the items would take was determined by GM fiat).

One amusing touch that improved Color was a bonus of 5 points for giving your character a dated, English-sounding name like "Eustace." Everyone did. My character's name was Socrates.

[Alan]

What's defines "Fantasy"?!?!

Only magic.  However, fantasy fiction also has strong elements of theme, using symbolism to explore archetypes, moral issues, and psychological growth.

Human-only milieus were once common in fiction.

In my own games, I usually throw out all but one race.  I dislike racial choices in RPGs for several reasons:

First, they used to be the prime gamist mechanism for gaining advantage.  (Non-humans outshined my poor self-made human characters.  I hold a grudge.)

Second, most treatments of races, especially elves and dwarves, are horribly derivative and stale.

Third, in many cases, racial choices are a poor excuse for characterization.

---

Future of Fantasy RPGs

Fantasy fiction uses the symbolic exploration of theme.  Characters are tied into that exploration from their origins and through their powers.  In what I call high fantasy, character's grow from the very origin of the cosmic conflict.  In low fantasy, they embody the premise.  There's plenty of room in the rpg field to develop these into mechanics.  

Hero Wars and Sorcerer and Sword are great examples of these approaches.

- Alan

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hi Patrick,

Well, if you're looking for some kind of original twist or spin or theme or whatever to put on good ol' fantasy then you're going about it all wrong. Originality is nigh impossible to actively pursue like that. It reminds me of some guy describing his homebrewed game to me once. He talked about one of the races that were primative and brutish. "Oh, so they're like orcs," my friend said. "NO they're not!" the guy says all indignant and stuff. "There are no orcs in my game." This guy was trying to be original and it just wasn't working, so he had to lie to himself that a primative brutish race was nothing like the typical primative brutish orcs found in most other RPGs. I would advise against this sort of thing. It makes you look like an ass.

To answer your question about whether or not fanatsy is still a viable collection of trapping or whatever we'll call it, my answer is yes and no.

Yes because it remains a very, very popular genre. New fantasy games continue to come out. Many roleplayers don't even consider playing anything else. I mean, they don't even consider the possibility. It's uncanny. To them an RPG *must be* fantasy. That and the top selling RPGs remain fantasy. We've been discussing the validity of what top selling means elsewhere here on the forge, but they are also popular games. Games people talk about and, if discussion on RPGnet means anything, play. And it seems like people cannot get enough of it and still want more fantasy RPGs.

No because it is a well-mined genre, set of trappings, etc. You'd be hard-pressed to come up with something that is not just "more of the same." Fantasy is to RPGs as westerns were to movies in the 40's and 50's. There is quite a glut of it. Prehaps not as much as there used to be, an nowhere near the volume westerns had but, boy, there have been a lot of them over the years. It's a cliche. Plain and simple. Many people are tired of cliches and are looking for something else.

Now the thing is, like westerns, although they aren't as prolifferate as they once were, a new western movie still comes out every now and again. So I doubt fantasy will ever go completely away. Just remember if you're going to write a fantasy RPG that you are walking on well-trodden ground. You are going to find it difficult to blaze your own trail and then to get others to follow it.

In other words: good luck and I wish you success.

[talysman]

Originally, in literary criticism, the term "high fantasy" was simply another term for "epic fantasy".  A high fantasy was about conflicts that shake the fabric of the fantasy world (LOTR, Stormbringer).  In low fantasy, the conflicts are more local and more human (REH's Conan being the best example).

depends on who was doing the criticism. most of the criticism I have read never mentioned the term "low fantasy", although perhaps it was implied. but I have always seen the term "high fantasy" applied to Lord Dunsany and C S Lewis as well as to Tolkien and Eddison, even though "epic fanatasy" only applies to Tolkien and Eddison, not Lewis and Dunsany. and although James Branch Cabell's "Figures of Earth" and "Jurgen" count as high fantasy, they are only borderline epic fantasy; Cabell was pushing the limits of the genre, getting a little too sophisticated and original to be considered an emulator of Mallory or Homer.

I've always understood the term to apply to "literature" as opposed to pulps or the hordes of genre novels; it was originally applied to writers who were respected by the literary world as a whole, as part of a grand tradition. later, the snobbishness was taken out and the term started getting applied to any story that emulated the fairy-tale, epic, or mythic styles without twisting it too much.

and I have never seen anyone classify "Stormbringer" as high fantasy; Elric is definitely swords and sorcery, what you would call "low fantasy". Moorcock himself specifically mentioned he devised Elric as a challenge to the hordes of Conan imitators; instead of a brawny barbarian, the hero is a weak sorceror-prince.

on another note, although we've talked a lot about elves, dwarves, and goblins, I think it's because they are easy, common motifs to focus on. there's certainly a lot more to draw on from the source literature. Simon mentioned drawing on Narnia, for example (Narnia has dwarves and monopods/dufflepuds, although I don't remember any elves in the stories.) I think the whole fairy tale aspect of high fantasy has been pretty much overlooked. the only games I can think of where players pretend to be children seem to be dark in tone, like Little Fears.

the other way to be original with high fantasy is to keep the cliche heroic fantasy focus, but to think of the roles of the races, artifacts, and places more in terms of their motifs. you can put unique races into heroic fantasy rpgs if they fulfill the role of a traditional motif without copying the cliches. again, taking elves as an example, their elfishness comes from their role as ancient, inherently magical, reclusive beings, not from pointy ears, longbows, or tree-loving habits. Tolkien was just revamping the Daoine Sidhe, the people who live beneath the hills in irish folklore. you could make a different Daoine Sidhe-like race, changing the outer trappings but keeping the underlying motifs. if you do it right, you have what looks like a completely original race, but with roots in the original tradition.

or pull some other traditional motif out that is mostly untouched. some people try to do catpeople, but they are just anthropomorphizing cats instead of drawing on fairy-tale cat stories. I've had an idea I wanted to develop for a long time about a short catrace based on combining "tom tit tat", "the king of cats", "puss in boots", and Lewis Carroll's Chesire Cat into a race of magical trickster felines that live among humans disguised as ordinary cats. that would pull from traditional motifs and could thus fit into high fantasy better than other rpg examples of cat-people, which draw more from Edgar Rice Burroughs or pulp fantasy.

it all boils down to being original while maintaining that traditional feel. hard work, but it can be done.

[Alan]

and I have never seen anyone classify "Stormbringer" as high fantasy; Elric is definitely swords and sorcery, what you would call "low fantasy".

Stormbringer is not what _I_ would call low fantasy.  By my definition, a story where the central conflict is cosmic in scale is high fantasy.  Stormbringer certainly has this, though many other Elric stories do not.

---

But let's set aside arguments over definitions.  I don't think they're as interesting as the question of where fantasy rpgs can go next.

Where can fantasy rpgs go next?  How to be original?

As I pointed out in my previous message, more attention to tying characters into the principles of fantasy is one area.  Sorcerer and Sword and Hero Wars have begun to explore this in a narrativist way.  TROS focuses more on the theme of blade combat.  Ork dives into being a particular non-human race.

The last actually suggests some options: the same treatment for other traditional races are probably marketable: a subterranean world of dwarves, a forrest world of elves - each with exclusive focus on the nature of the specific societies, origins, and magic.

Another way to be original, is to make a better effort at bringing the spirit and themes of original source material into play.  Norse myth, Tolkein, etc.  This has rarely been achieved successfully in the past.

And I think the ideas in Sorcerer and Sword can be expanded.  In particular, formalized mechanics for jumping up and down the career of a hero.  Drawing from Ron's innovation on Little Fears, character creation might first require that the players define what their heroes are like at the end of their careers - perhaps with flaws and decay looking them in the face.  Play would then involve jumping back through their careers, just as REH jumped around Conan's career as he composed the stories.  The reward of a session would be to adjust the end-of-career version, making them more heroic or eliminating flaws.

Any other ideas?


- Alan

[greyorm]

Is there ANY role at all a human can't 'get by' in?

Yes.  Hence the question.

Would Tolkien's elves be the same if they were human?
No.

Would D&D's elves be the same if they were human?
Yes.

Would Tolkien's orcs be the same if they were human?
No.

Would D&D's orcs be the same if they were human?
Yes.

Etc. Etc.

I realize what I'm trying to point out may be a tricky concept to wrap one's head around, especially as I'm not being as clear as I wish to be about it. Perhaps someone else can take what I've said and create a better, more understandable example.

[Sylus Thane]

I'm just curious why most people feel that in order for it to be considered a high fantasy it must include dwarves and elves and the like. Or that Tolkien is considered the model. If I create a world that has various species in it that does not automatically make them men in rubbersuits just because I cannot devote an entire novel to describe each one. Yes Tolkien did his research and based his creation off of many modern myths and legends, but why must everyone else? Throughout most myth and folklore the things talked about weren't usually all that nice to begin with. Why can't we create our own new myths and legends? No wonder most people think nothing new can be done, their to focused on the old to believe they can do better.

Sylus

[greyorm]

Sylus,

I'm not saying nothing new CAN be done, but that it will be difficult to do.
In fact, as I hope I've been clear enough about, just following along the old standard of High Fantasy (dwarves, elves, etc) does not even remotely guarantee avoidance of the men-in-rubber-suits problem.

In fact, you'll note my main examples of problem games are those which utilize the standard fantasy races. Simply, physical/power/cultural differences are not enough to create a compelling non-human race that wouldn't work just as well as a different branch/culture of humanity.

Also, please note the reference I made to Exalted and their handling of a non-human race. If you can figure out what they did right with their Fair Folk and copy it, I think you'll be able to make a number of the races presented for Dawn of the Magi interesting and compelling enough to avoid the problem.

As a hint, I believe the difference lies in the thematic importance and nature of the Fair Folk, not merely that they are facts X and Y and Z.

Along with that, does anyone else have a game they want to mention which handles non-human races without resulting in the rubber-suit feel? And, more importantly, why do you think it works?

[Alan]

I'm just curious why most people feel that in order for it to be considered a high fantasy it must include dwarves and elves and the like. ... Why can't we create our own new myths and legends?

I think this is the question that I and greyorm are approaching from different angles.

Tolkein's fantasy is not admirable because it contains elves and dwarves - it is admired because the elements are woven into the magical origin of Middle Earth and they are defined by their role in that origin.  Elves and dwarves and hobbits each have a symbolic purpose in LOTR.  D&D lacks this.

Fantasy fiction at its best is the creation of myth.  If you want to create an rpg where the non-human races have mythic depth, start by involving them directly in the core of the fantasy - the creation of the world or the heart of the function of magic.

One flaw I've seen in some fantasy rpgs is to explain the variety of races with kind of evolution theory.  This is more suited to science fiction (qv Ringworld, where all major species, from scavengers to herbivors, are descended from one humanoid species.)

- Alan

[Sylus Thane]

So all in all it comes down to setting and the story behind it. Why is the world the way it is, and why did it's residents become the way they are?

I know people aren't really saying that different races from the norm are a bad thing, but I feel sometimes I feel they look at the norm and use it as a comparison far to often.

To add to Greyworms post of what games people feel did well at avoiding the "man in a rubber suit" problem, I'd like to offer up a contest. Many of the races within Dawn of the Magi aren't set in stone. They could easily suffer from the "Rubber Suit" complex if I'm not extremely careful.

So what I propse is a short story contest. If people are interested, i would take entries that would offer insights to a particular race, or more than one, and insight to what they feel that the world is like inspired by the setting info in the Dawn of the Magi thread.

Anybody interested, not sure what the prize would be but I'm sure I could come up with something.

Sylus

[talysman]

I'm just curious why most people feel that in order for it to be considered a high fantasy it must include dwarves and elves and the like. Or that Tolkien is considered the model. If I create a world that has various species in it that does not automatically make them men in rubbersuits just because I cannot devote an entire novel to describe each one. Yes Tolkien did his research and based his creation off of many modern myths and legends, but why must everyone else? Throughout most myth and folklore the things talked about weren't usually all that nice to begin with. Why can't we create our own new myths and legends? No wonder most people think nothing new can be done, their to focused on the old to believe they can do better.

it's not that you can't create high fantasy without elves and dwarves, but that you can't just make things up without the weight of a massive tradition behind it. if you do, it becomes one of the other fantastic genres. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith made up fantastical races and concepts that no one else even comes close to -- but they wrote weird tales, not high fantasy. Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros", on the other hand, is high fantasy, but without elves or dwarves; he decided to use Demons, Imps, and Witches as his fantasy races, and even twisted the concepts quite a bit, but kept it all within the heroic tradition. and, as I suggested, you could cloth mythic or fairy-tale source motifs in a totally original manner, but keeping the feel of the tradition.

let's try an example. for the sake of not boring anyone with talk about elves and dwarves, let's try a pseudogreek rpg setting; our underlying racial archetypes are satyrs, nymphs, centaurs and cyclopes, but we'll change them while trying to maintain the underlying traditional feel.

so first, you need to define the traditional role for each of these races.

[*]SATYRS are somewhat solitary but with a weakness for wine, women, and song; you could think of them as representing the motif of hedonism and wildness.
[*]NYMPHS are the spirits of nature, linked to rivers, lakes, woods, mountains. they are not as wild as satyrs, but still dangerous. you could think of them as the motif of life and natural beauty.
[*]CENTAURS are more herdlike than satyrs, but share their wildness, combined with a brutish edge. they could be considered the motif of roughness and savagery.
[*]CYCLOPES are also somewhat brutish as well as being gigantic. they are solitary like the satyrs, but less fun-loving; three cyclopes were less brutish than the others and were craftsmen, assistants to Hephaestus. they could be considered the motif of strength and wrathfulness.
[/list:u]

all together the four races have a very uncivilized feel; that was their role in the greek legends, as contrast to the civilizing role of the demigods and heroes. if you change their appearance, you will still want to keep that feel.

two of races are part-animal, while the other two are mostly human. just to be different, we'll swap them. to be further different, we'll base the all-female race on the cyclopes; and, since we are animalizing them, let's give them the bodies of serpents (we're crossing them over with another greek motif here, the lamia.)

for the mostly-human race based on satyrs that embody lust and desire, we cross them with another greek myth (the sirens) and the celtic folktales of being "fairy led".

that leaves the now-animalized nymphs and the humanized centaurs. let's give the new nymphs the bodies of birds, crossing them with fairy-tales of swan maidens. as for the new centaurs, we'll carry over the transplanted concept of "human with single inhuman feature" that we swapped with the cyclopes but keep then otherwise similar to centaurs: nomadic, travelling in bands, warlike, occasionally peaceful enough to make treaties with human villages, but somewhat untrustworthy.

here are the transformed races, fleshed out a bit more. since I don't know greek, I will take a name from another legend or fairy-tale and convert it to "fake greek".

[*]TAMLYNOI (taken from satyrs) are somewhat solitary people, about four foot tall, with a green tint to their skin. they live in wooded or grassy areas where they can blend in with their surroundings somewhat. tamlynoi have a thirst for pleasure, frequently stealing into human villages under cover of darkness to acquire wine and food, or hovering beyond the range of campfires to listen to shepherds sing. they are unable to form words, but can sing wordlessly with a sound so enchanting that people feel compelled to listen; sometimes, a tamlynos will lure away children or solitary adults, holding their victim captive in their lairs.
[*]LANKELOTES (taken from nymphs) are the female spirits of nature with the wings and torsos of birds. each is spiritually linked to a stream, pool, grove, or hill in a secluded area. they tend to be nonaggressive and shy, retreating to the company of their own kind, unless threatened or treated with disrespect. the beauty of a lankelot can strike a man mute or blind; some obsessed men attempt to captured one for a wife, but lankelotes will pine for their freedom and will always seek escape. travellers may stumble upon a flock of winged women bathing in a woodland pool, laughing and chatting, only to see them flee in a flurry of wings when the lankelotes notice they are being spied upon.
[*]TARTARYKOI (taken from centaurs) are warlike bands of three-armed humanoids. they are occasionally friendly enough with humans, if offered food and drink, but tend to be envious and prone to taking what they want by force; for this reason, a tartarykos is rarely welcome in any village. the tartarykoi are nomadic, hunting with spear and throwing knives, their favored weapons; they will occasionally attempt to capture tamlynoi or lankelotes as slaves.
[*]OOLANDES (taken from cyclopes) are nine-foot tall brutish race of strong solitary women with taloned hands and the lower bodies of serpents.  some are skilled craftswomen or blacksmiths, leading an occasional fool-hardy adventurer to travel to the oolandes mountain range in an attempt to bargain or steal magical artifacts; unfortunately, many oolandes also have a taste for human flesh.
[/list:u]

place all of this in a pseudogreek setting, with villages governed by consent among the elders and the occasional town dominated by a tyrant (inevitably challenged by hero rumored to have semidivine ancestory.)

this is all very sketchy, but it gives an example of how you would make changes while trying to maintain contact with an existing tradition. identify the motifs, try to make your changes resemble motifs from other myths and legends, and maintain the same relationships in the overall setting. you will still need some background stories to help establish a feel for the setting; no one is going to be inspired by a list of made-up races stripped of the stories they fit into.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. I smell a Narrativist slant to a lot of this. My Sim side says to hell with motifs, and the metaphors that the creatures represent. To hell with myth. In fact, what I really want is the sci-fi feel mentioned, just with different races.

Very simply, I want to discover the details about these creatures. Wheras the Narrativist wants to create their myth. Very standard distiinction. I think that Sylus is just going very much for the Sim POV.

That said, Sylus, you've got a really uphill road ahead of you. Have you ever seen Skyrealms of Jorune, Sylus? This is an example of how one can make up new races from scratch, and try to make them distinct enough to be compelling to examine. But even with all the effort taken it remains mostly unknown. Same with Glorantha (elves are plants, fer heavens sakes), Talislanta, and Tekumel, and many, many homebrews. Note that Glorantha is experiencing a revival because it's gone Narrativist with HW. But as these games are about Sim exploration, you are going to have to compete with all of them. And that's a lot of imagination to overcome.

Perhaps much easier to just do Dwarves and Elves again, and just create a system that does them up right.

OTOH, maybe you like a challenge. But if so, I entreat you to examine all the above settings, and others so that you can see where the bar is at that you have to hurdle.

Mike

[Sylus Thane]

Actually Mike,
I don't mind myth or legend, but I feel they should relate to the setting. What I prefer the most is consistency, as long as a game has that I don't care what it is about. It's the consistency that makes it enjoyable because you know there are certain constants in which you can work with. It is when games are inconsistent, especially with supplements introducing new things or dramatic changes without reasonable explanation, that I begin to lose my enjoyment for them.

And yes I love a challenge, if I didn't I wouldn't bother designing a game let alone a whole world (soon to be a universe). And don't worry, I've also had ideas for the "Standard" Races and ways in which to make them unique. I just prefer to work on my own creation of things.

As far as SkyRealms, no I haven't seen it. If you wouldn't mind directing me where I can find it I will definitly give it a look see. If your ever interested yourself there are several anthropology course and essays that deal with the creation of species and how they work within a world.

Sylus

[greyorm]

Sylus,

It isn't so much story as theme that is combined with a number of other things. I think focus on the idea that a race needs "stories" or an entire book devoted to fleshing out the races via fiction is resulting in your travelling the wrong path for the right reasons.

In fact, I think stories/fiction in an RPG are just bad, because they're never done for the right reasons. For more ideas on what I mean about that, I point you to the thread Sneak preview: Sex & Sorcery excerpt, which deals somewhat with the issue of fiction in gaming.

For example, to use my repeatedly harped-upon example of Exalted's Fair Folk...there is no game fiction associated with them (or if there is, I haven't read it). Nonetheless, the game in its descriptions of the Fair Folk has managed to make them more than the sum of their parts, and avoid the "rubber-suit" effect.

To use another related example, from outside epic fantasy, the game Immortal uses beings known as "Droves" as their main enemy race. Droves are never detailed mechanically in any of the original supplements, nor are they described, only explained.

When they are described in later books, game details about them conflict from source to source. Despite various problems with this from the standpoint of a gamemaster or player, Droves are thematically secure in their role, and one knows what they are and what they mean without the other information.

The following quote is back in the Dawn of the Magi thread, and I think the author nails it to a degree...this brought interest and uniqueness to the races that they lacked simply from the descriptions you had given above.

Have the Vailon inhabiting the overgrown ruins of an ancient city, perhaps that once belonged to the beings that were responsible for their creation/cultivation. Have the Nasko be artists and sculptors of unparalleled skill with the walls of their caverns decorated with hauntingly beautiful bas-reliefs that few surface dwellers have ever seen.

[Sylus Thane]

Actually Greyorm I agree with you. I think Dawn of the Magi suffers a little in the species descriptions by the fact they are not done. When i refer to story, i generally mean the races story as a whole, but not in great specific detail as you would get in a novel. I guess when I refer to story I also tend to include theme and setting as well.

Sylus