some questions about "Fantasy"

[greyorm]

Mike,

I suggest that a thematic slant to the races is necessary in this case, even in a wholly Simulationist game, due the fact the style of the game has been described as "High Fantasy."

Having such a style, ala Tolkien, necessitates thematic importance to the races, rather than simply biological differences. That is where the line between epic/high fantasy and gritty fantasy or sword & sorcery comes into play most strongly.

Simply equate Prof. Tolkien's books with any of your standard fantasy fare to note the difference. There are also a number of excellent essays you can find at your local library or on-line which explain the differences in more detail.

What they all boil down to, however, is that in order to have a book or game with a feeling of High Fantasy, you must have certain elements contained or emphasized by the item: theme and meaning inherent in actions, locations, events and peoples.

If you pick up the new Lord of the Rings game and read through it, you will find that though the system is of rather standard fare, the developers were quite aware of this and attempted to work that into the framework of the system.

I tend to believe they succeeded in some notable ways, and any number of good thought and design philosophy (as it relates to what the game is attempting to portary) is contained therein.

[Alan]

Mike,

I suggest that a thematic slant to the races is necessary in this case, even in a wholly Simulationist game, due the fact the style of the game has been described as "High Fantasy."

Yes, and consider: a thematic approach to fantasy almost automatically generates clusters of characteristics like magical affinities, elemental affinities, cultural traditions etc., etc. which a simulationist likes to explore.  It provides a framework for coherant and consistant design of fantasy races.  

- Alan

[talysman]

I suggest that a thematic slant to the races is necessary in this case, even in a wholly Simulationist game, due the fact the style of the game has been described as "High Fantasy."

Having such a style, ala Tolkien, necessitates thematic importance to the races, rather than simply biological differences. That is where the line between epic/high fantasy and gritty fantasy or sword & sorcery comes into play most strongly.

yes, exactly. if you are playing a fantasy game with few traditional thematic borrowings and a lot of biological detail, it's not high fantasy. it might be swords and sorcery, or weird tale, or science fantasy, or dark fantasy. I'd say most of the time it will wind up as science fantasy, in fact, like Barsoom.

also, not all Sim is Explorartion of Ecology. you're allowed to explore Character and Color, too!

[Sylus Thane]

Ahh, but who decides what is traditionally themantic or the prerequisites that define high fantasy?

Sylus
I think some people may be confusing high fantasy for epic fantasy.

[greyorm]

Ahh, but who decides what is traditionally themantic or the prerequisites that define high fantasy?

Professors of literature.

I think some people may be confusing high fantasy for epic fantasy.

I quite possibly am. I admit I am unclear on the definition that seperates the two, though a brief browsing of the internet has revealed that I am not the only one, apparently, as I see reference to high fantasy as epic fantasy, and vice versa -- that is, the terms are used interchangably.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that consistency ideal you have, Sylus, is exactly what I'm talking about. Myth is not consistent, particularly, it's mysterious. In fact, you may do more damage to a race's mystique by revealing it in detail than by leaving parts blank.

As I write that, it occurs to me that you might want to look up Fang's concept of the Mystique in Scattershot.

Doesn't anybody use Google anymore?

http://www.jorune.org/
http://www.tekumel.com/
http://www.talislanta.com/
http://www.glorantha.com/

Anyone want to direct him to any more?

Mike

[talysman]

Ahh, but who decides what is traditionally themantic or the prerequisites that define high fantasy?

Professors of literature.

I think some people may be confusing high fantasy for epic fantasy.

I quite possibly am. I admit I am unclear on the definition that seperates the two, though a brief browsing of the internet has revealed that I am not the only one, apparently, as I see reference to high fantasy as epic fantasy, and vice versa -- that is, the terms are used interchangably.

one is a subset of the other.

to answer the first question first: traditional themes are traditional themes. I'm talking about themes on the "folk" level. if it hasn't been passed around for generations, it's not traditional. that's what "traditional" traditionally means.

to get really specific: if you want to know what the traditional themes are, go look at Stith Thompson's Motif Index. that's all the themes, as far as we know, although folklorists attempt to discover more.

so: high fantasy is a highly literary genre that uses these traditional themes. what's epic fantasy? fantasy that uses the traditional themes of the epic. you have beowulf, you have gilgamesh, you have the illiad, the odessy, the aeneid... and you have modern writers attempting to emulate those old forms. that's epic fantasy.

there are other kinds of high fantasy, based on other traditional story forms. if it reads more like a myth, it's mythic fantasy. if it reads more like a fairy tale... well, "fairy tale fantasy" sounds funny, but you get the idea.

[Mike Holmes]

I guess my point here is that the definitions are useless. Sylus wants something like what he's developing. Whatever that's called, he wants to know how to support that. He seems to want some mythic or legendary content such that it delivers a feeling of consistancy to the world.

Let me ask, Sylus, by consistency do you mean internal consistency? That it all makes sense together? This sounds pretty Sim to me. And the way he's going about it seems like it will get him something reminiscent of the games I've mentioned. IMO.

So are people sugesting that he's not shooting for the right feel? Or just trying to say that the feel he's shooting for is not High Fantasy (as he claims)? Or do you think that his feel is just fine as is?

Mike

[Sylus Thane]

Let me ask, Sylus, by consistency do you mean internal consistency? That it all makes sense together?

Yes Mike, that's what I mean by consistency. I've seen many games that were great but began to fall apart later with their expansions and other works because they weren't internally consistent.

Or just trying to say that the feel he's shooting for is not High Fantasy (as he claims)?

My main question is what determines high fantasy? Is it having elves and dwarves and other races of myth and lore or is it something else? When I asked who decides I got this answer.

Professors of literature.

Now no offense, but this is a pretty lame answer. Professors of most any subject can't agree on anything, let alone literature because it is so subjective, just like art. Now if someone were to pull out a websters literary dictionary or something and shows me it stating high fantasy as requiring things such as elves and dwarves then I will concede on that point.

But, I feel High Fantasy is subjective but has some common elements. Such as a feeling of being beyond the norm and having an epic feel that the reader or player can relate too. It doesn't require fantasy races, but merely a sense of wonder and in most cases adventure in a world beyond our own.

I think that consistency ideal you have, Sylus, is exactly what I'm talking about. Myth is not consistent, particularly, it's mysterious. In fact, you may do more damage to a race's mystique by revealing it in detail than by leaving parts blank.

I think we're on the same track here, just coming from different directions. For me you have to have consistents to the world in order to develop it's own mystique from there. If you don't have any consistency things just become a jumbled mess.

He seems to want some mythic or legendary content such that it delivers a feeling of consistancy to the world.

Yes and no. For me the world needs to have a consistency to itself in order to make the myths and legends believable. If there is no consistency, anything you try to relay as mythic loses some of it's substance as it will become just another normal day as there is nothing to seperate it from the norm. I guess it just decides once again who decide whether it is high (or epic) fantasy, the designer (or author), the reader, or an outside third party of definitions?

Sylus

[Mike Holmes]

Again, we could debate endlessly about the definition of High Fantasy (there are several threads that have done just that). Instead, just tell us what you think it means, or, rather, what you want for your game, and we can try to support that. After all, if someone were to prove that High Fantasy meant something other than what you think it means would you change the game to match? The only important thing is what you want the game to do. Which I think you've stated just fine.

There is some question as to the feasibility of the goal as you've stated it, but that's another discussion.

Mike

[Alan]

Again, we could debate endlessly about the definition of High Fantasy (there are several threads that have done just that). Instead, just tell us what you think it means, or, rather, what you want for your game, and we can try to support that.

Hear!  Hear!  This business of definitions isn't productive.  In fact, it reminds me of advice from a writing mentor: don't try to write to the market, write your own stuff and sell it.

The point: you can't be original writing to someone else's model.  Originality comes from your own unique interpretation.

So, Patrick, what do you want in your game?

- Alan

[Patrick Boutin]

Wow. Never tought that it will generate all this.

I started it and I will finish it.  It just get in my face: it's all my fault. I started my post with High end fantasy... when I just wanted to talk about "fantasy".

High fantasy, low fantasy, epic fantasy, sword & sorcery, all terms of wonder in a generally long lost past. The only general assumption that I can make is that epic tend to talk about more mature theme and sword & sorcery generally evolves around humans only.

With this post I only wanted to know what was the feeling around the fantasy theme in game design. I know that it's a crazy time for fantasy with the D20 thing but I think that I can make something different in this kind of rpg (I know that I'm not the first to say that).

and, yes Alan, it may be the time that I talk a little bit more about my game and what I want in it. So I will post it in the indie game design forum and I will wait for some comments about it.

Patrick

[greyorm]

Sylus,

From your further explanation, I realize I obviously didn't understand what you wanted or were looking for with your question -- but I still would have preferred a response that didn't simply attack my answer as apparently "just dumb." I have to admit, being described as "lame" stings a bit...I can suck it up, but you might want to try to avoid tagging in the future.

As well, to be perfectly honest, I find the "oh, its all subjective anyways, so we can't know and shouldn't discuss it" response to be anti-intellectual and definitely insulting to those who choose to study the non-objective sciences: philosophy, literature, psychology, art, etc.

Simply, it is rather like saying, "Not all scientists agree on X, so we can't listen to them about it!"  Or "Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of this or that word, so the word is meaningless!" Right...then we go nowhere.  But that's starting to drift off topic, so back on we go.

Beyond that, as stated, I misunderstood the motives for your asking, considering your statement about the division between epic and high fantasy, one can assume you know what you are talking about, or at least are aware of a definition. So interpreting your question as an honest search for a definition -- that you were ignorant as to the definitions -- was not the immediate assumption on my part.

Even so, I think that a simple search reveals a number of definitions for what comprises High Fantasy.  Take your pick.  If you would prefer, I can provide you with my own definitions of what makes high/epic fantasy (and you'll note that I do not make a distinction between them).

Also, I'm slightly confused as to your statement about elves and dwarves in fantasy, a statement made as though someone, somewhere is demanding that they exist in a work in order for that work to be considered high fantasy.  Examining this thread, I cannot imagine it is anyone hereon making such a statement, so I wonder at the reason you are bringing it up?

[M. J. Young]

Wow, this thread has exploded in no time at all; I'm going to take a few pot shots, although there's a tremendous amount here with which I agree.

How about goblins as an oppressed, slave race and humanity as the villainous slave drivers?

Did almost that with http://www.valdron.com/world.html">Orc Rising, a Multiverser world (currently available for beta testing, and you might find it interesting to use without the core system). The differences are that it is orcs who are oppressed, and the oppressors are humans, elves, and dwarfs. The concept which is behind it reflects the fact that the "free peoples" believe that they are civilizing the primitive sub-human orcs by incorporating them as the slave class in their societies while claiming their lands--lands which the orcs don't really claim as their own, because they don't have that kind of concept of property, but which are their native habitat essential to their survival.

Further I really detest "new races". The whole idea of "I want other races in my game but I don't want the same old fantasy races" is IMO utterly absurd. It takes as a starting assumption 2 things. 1) That a fantasy game NEEDS racial variety in order to be interesting, and 2) that somehow the current author can create a race that is more compelling than one which has decades of treatment behind it. The first one is just plain not true, and the second is false far more often than it isn't.

IMO fantasy races are not interesting.

While I strongly agree with Valamir's notion that it's silly to change the fantasy races for the reasons he suggests, I think it is entirely possible to create a "new race" in a fantasy setting.  I think it works better if you're using a different fantasy setting. Bah Ke'gehn (Multiverser: The Second Book of Worlds) has at its core a unique fantasy race which has gotten some praise from those who have encountered it. The thing is, though, that they exist in their own fantasy world, not in a Tolkienesque or fairy tale world. That said, they are built from the ground up, and come out entirely different from humans in countless ways yet remain playable.

I think perhaps Star Frontiers' dralasites could have been very like this with a bit more work. The authors began with something amoebae-like which reproduced by airborne spores and shifted between masculine and feminine genders over its life cycle. Building from that base, one could have devised a race that was completely different from humans at a fundamental level, with different motivations and attitudes. Unfortunately, functionally within the game it primarily boiled down to a few neat advantages and disadvantages.

Building a unique fantasy race that is essentially inhuman is difficult. It is made the more difficult (as I've said before) by the tendency to give them monolithic cultures. Rilans are not all Japanese with funny hair. Alien/fantasy races have to have the distinctions at the core so that they can be extended into the same diversity of culture which we see among humans, and still have that fundamental difference running through them.

Oh, and I, too, took fantasy literature courses in college.

How about a roleplaying game based on a re-imagined version of the Narnia stories by C.S. Lewis?

We did that, too. It was a lot of fun, although I don't often run it with children characters because of the way Multiverser works (I could, but I've got some good Narnia scenarios which work with adult player characters).

Reverend Daegmorgan is spot on with his assertion that many races which are just humans with masks in many games are not human in the source literature. It is difficult to manage that transition to playing a completely different genus, with different emotions and motivations and perceptions of reality (and particularly difficult for beginning role players), but with the proper foundation it can be done.

I hope this has added something to the thread that was worth adding, despite its rather disjointed approach.

--M. J. Young

[simon_hibbs]

Actually Simon the original post did specify High Fantasy...which while certainly varied itself, is generally concerned with those Tolkein-esque tropes.

The definitions of High and Low fantasy accepted as standard in literary criticism are that High Fantasy takes place in an imaginary world, while low fantasy takes place in  a fantastical version of our own world. Not all imaginary fantasy worlds are Tolkienesque.

One of the key reasons I have trouble with "new races" is simply that Tolkein's races were inspired by 100s of years of existing myth.  Ideas that he then spent decades researching, musing about, conceptualizing, etc. until these ideas were published in 1000+ pages of novels and assorted works.  Entire cultures, entire languages, entire histories and legends of their own.

This is true, but there is a whole world of alternative fantastical mythology from which to draw, all with at least as much depth of background. Mesoamerican, Egyptian, African, Indian, Oriental, and many other cultures offer an imense richness of material from which to draw inspiration. Why cast it aside so casualy? Furthermore, Tolkien's particular re-imagination of north european mythological elements isn't the only one possible.

The reason why the traditional races work (even if awkwardly) is because we know that back behind them all they are all inspired by Tolkein and Tolkein is vast.  This is why we can accept 4 or 5 paragraphs of description in the players handbook on what an elf is like or what a dwarf is like.

But there's the rub. D&D elves and dwarves _seem_ as though they've got impressive tolkienesque credentials, but in fact they don't. None of the richness of Tolkien's back-plots for the Lord Of the Rings applies in Greyhawk, or The Forgotten Realms, etc etc. Instead they're a thin, tasteless parody of someone else's imagination pasted on to a foreign landscape.  What's the point?

I agree that creating new races just for the sake of it, with little or no forethought on why they are necessery, and how they fit into their environment is not ideal. Surely the solution is to discuss, and encourage creative ways to develop truly compelling game worlds, with inhabitants that naturaly embody or express the themes intended by the designer? Rather than advocate the death of creativity and argue that fantasy worlds should best be produced using cookie-cutter concepts borrowed from someone else's imagination?


Simon Hibbs