Hello everybody!

After a crazy year, I'm back (trying) making roleplaying games once more.

The post "Dawn of the Magi" and the article "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron make me wonder about Fantasy Games. I always loved Fantasy and I will always love it! But I have to face it: can I make something really original that will be High end Fantasy?!?! Is it really possible?!?!

What's define "Fantasy"?!?! Magic, swords, Goblins, Knights, anything else?!?!

What about a fantasy game with only one...race?!?! Human...only human!!! Something in the line of "The Black Company" by Glen Cook. Is it something that you would like to play or is it too dull to have only one race in a fantasy game?!?!

And what about Dwarfs and Elfs!!! Is it possible to be original with these?!!? You know... changing the standard!! The Old race is Human and the new blood are the Dwarfs and the Elfs.

Just some thoughts about Fantasy!

Patrick

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

- Alan

Well this is all very IMO but I'll take a stab.

I would LOVE to see a game where all the races are human (Slaine comes close as a fantasy game in this regard). To a large extent the "differences" between races in fantasy games are proxies for human "races" to include issues that the designers didn't have the balls to to put in print. You can say things about Humans, Orcs, and Half-Orcs, or Elves vs Dwarves that you couldn't say about human cultures without having the sentiment being rightly labeled racism. A game where the races were clearly human and not fantasy proxies would force the designer to treat such issues in a mature manner rather than just assume its ok to treat half orcs as second class citizens because they're half orcs.

As far as traditional fantasy races I have a somewhat unique opinion on this matter myself. If they are going to be included, I want them to be recognizeably "standard". I don't WANT dwarves who look like dwarves but are really something else entirely. Ditto with the other fantasy races. Sometimes an interesting twist is interesting. Like is Sovereign Stone where a minor tradition regarding Dwarves and Horses is turned on its head by making Dwarves mongol-esque horsemen...but despite this minor tweak...they're still recognizeable as "dwarf".

Edit: Yeah, Alan, that's exactly the kind of thing I like. Putting a new twist on a recognizeable "race"...not to make it different, but just a different perspective.


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. They are "kewl" in the juvenile appreciation sense of the world. I find them to be an inadequate substitute for true creativity. Very few have anything approaching a reasonable biology or culture. Mostly the "We have over a dozen playable races" type game really means we have a bizarre illustration to which we've tacked on attribute modifiers, listed 2 paragraphs of heinously stereotyped and utterly ridiculous "racial features" and called it "playable". Blech.

"hey over here I have cat people, and over here are land squids...thats why my game is better than D&D. D&D just has boring elves and dwarves and stupid halflings but I have land squids. Oh yeah and you can play half dragons and titans too. The +18 Strength Titans have is balanced out by their difficulty in passing through doors. And over there are dog people and they hate the cat people...you know because they're dogs. And we also have rat people...they're really good theives and they live in sewers. There are also crocodile people and tree people, and bird people. And oh, I almost forgot, in my game you can play intellegent giant snails. Yeah...thats what makes my game so cool"

Ye gods how I hate and despise that.

Patrick - and I am only saying that because I care - there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.

I would agree with the concepts behind your post, Valimer, but I would disagree with some of it's implied aplication. Much of what you have to say seems to rely on the theory that High Fantasy is a premise in itself. Their are several fantasy universes that use alternate races from the contemporary fantasy ones that still are a value to the RPG community. Final Fantasy is a living testimony to this, as well as pokemon. While they may not be great examples, they rely on a different premise and the use of different races is neccecary sometimes to the plot. Think about the applications of new races. IF, they service to facilitate gamplay under a different premise. Tolkein's universe used races for a single thing each. Hobbits=innocence Elves=masters or future or beauty Wizards=Divinity Humans=Humans with a twist on the need to evolve beyond human nature; Dwarves= Greed, ect.

Now if you believe that these races cannot be improved upon, you can believe that. But if you condemn all other fantastic race creation you are trulley limiting yourself.

However, there are some parts that I would agree with. I don't think that you should create new races so that you can have a new RPG. New races should be added where they're needed, not elsewhere. I also agree with your belief that turning animals into races, giving them stats, and calling them uniqe is absurd. However, if such race types have application, such as in a gamist RPG or simulationist RPG that is about the use of human culture through other races, then it could be used.

Sure, fantasy still has room to grow, its just that folks are confused about what is growth, originality or innovation. New races, new spells and gods don't make a different fantasy.

Compare Conan, Elric, the Dark Crystal and Where the Wild Things Are. Each is a form of fantasy in its own right, but how it all comes together is very different, and its more fundamental than races, spells and gods..

In terms of games, most people work backwards with designing setting. Instead of thinking, "I want a dark, primal world" and building around it, they take D&D and try and push it that direction.

Even worse, folks try to get a different style of play with mechanics that fundamentally are the same. Most of these fantasy game mechanics are a result of house rules and fixes to D&D or some other system. They want to "fix" the core system, but usually don't look at the core problem.

Going into conflict, most folks come back to either a world of adventure without any inherent conflict, or else a "big evil" that is not very different than any of the big evils in a Whitewolf game.

So what's the answer to this? Don't start with standard fantasy. Kill all assumptions. Figure out what is the mood, the essence of the setting. What is the style of gameplay about? Start from scratch. If you need more classes, more races, more spells or more gods to make it interesting, then it just isn't.

Nonstandard fantasy games you may wish to check out-Donjon, the Riddle of Steel, Elfs, Draconic, Otherkind, Paladin, Zenobia, Alyria, & Trollbabe. That's a pretty big list, so we're nowhere near done exhausting the fantasy area, its just a lot of people haven't looked beyond anything with a license.

Chris

The post "Dawn of the Magi" and the article "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron make me wonder about Fantasy Games. I always loved Fantasy and I will always love it! But I have to face it: can I make something really original that will be High end Fantasy?!?! Is it really possible?!?!

What's define "Fantasy"?!?! Magic, swords, Goblins, Knights, anything else?!?!

What about a fantasy game with only one...race?!?! Human...only human!!! Something in the line of "The Black Company" by Glen Cook. Is it something that you would like to play or is it too dull to have only one race in a fantasy game?!?!

And what about Dwarfs and Elfs!!! Is it possible to be original with these?!!? You know... changing the standard!! The Old race is Human and the new blood are the Dwarfs and the Elfs.

hi, Valamir, I thought I would comment about two things you said:

Valamir wrote:
I would LOVE to see a game where all the races are human (Slaine comes close as a fantasy game in this regard). To a large extent the "differences" between races in fantasy games are proxies for human "races" to include issues that the designers didn't have the balls to to put in print. You can say things about Humans, Orcs, and Half-Orcs, or Elves vs Dwarves that you couldn't say about human cultures without having the sentiment being rightly labeled racism. A game where the races were clearly human and not fantasy proxies would force the designer to treat such issues in a mature manner rather than just assume its ok to treat half orcs as second class citizens because they're half orcs.

Valamir wrote:
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.

I find myself nodding in agreement with Val.

One of the main reasons, in fact, I just sort of shrugged about "Dawn of the Magi" was the list of a dozen different races. I thought, as I do about similar work (such as the various D20 supplements containing new races), what's the point of all this? Seems messy and crowded. Overall the idea was uncompelling to me.

Simply, I read through it and found nothing that really made me say, "OH! Wow..." (with a few minor exceptions here and there).
What I saw was "insect guys, tree guys, lizard guys, cat guys, etc."

Now look at "Exalted." One might argue it is in the Sword & Sorcery genre, but IMO this is solid fantasy, even though it has no other races but humans...or wait, does it?

What about the Fae Courts on the edges of reality, ie: Elves.

But they aren't just "Elves" or rather, typical fantasy elves who are nothing more than humans with pointy-ears. Even Tolkien's elves weren't simply a biologically seperate species, they don't come off as men with pointy ears -- though his imitators, particularly the standard D&D and clones, end up treating them in such a fashion that this is exactly what they feel like.

They have this unique presence and feel about that which goes hand-in-hand with the idea behind them.

Opposite this is the idea that having a different biology/culture/philosophy somehow makes for an interesting race is broken on a fundamental level. As Valamir states, it is like having a funky illustration and some stats to go with it...you will not capture the feel of a different race with such an idea, nor will one based on such have any compelling presence to it.

Take a look at Tolkien's races overall: each is drawn from an extensive ancient European mythos, but molded in a fashion that their overall existance and history in the world of Middle-Earth is unique and compelling in and of itself, beyond the mere biology, appearance or culture/philosophy of the race.

Their existance is mythic, in a sense. Tolkien elves aren't just immortal/long-lived, pointy-eared nature-lovers who like magic and forests alot (ala D&D)...there's a compelling history and culture about them that persists in Tolkien's world, something otherwise missing from D&D et al.

You could easily change the appearance and biology of Tolkien's elves entirely and they would not lose their identity. This is untrue in standard fantasy clones.

Frex, "they live in cities and they like to gamble alot, and they have no hair!" Standard D&D elves...cripes, we're talking a seperate species. Tolkien elves...not so easy to make them un-elves with such a change.

Ask yourself this: "Can humans 'get by' in that role?" If the answer, even remotely, is yes, then why create a seperate race? (ala: a race of savage mercenaries!) If the answer is 'no', then you've found the idea for an actually compelling non-human race.

greyorm wrote: Ask yourself this: "Can humans 'get by' in that role?" If the answer, even remotely, is yes, then why create a seperate race? (ala: a race of savage mercenaries!) If the answer is 'no', then you've found the idea for an actually compelling non-human race.

Greyorm, Talysman et al,

For the first time in long time I have the desire to play High Fantasy, though I've always considered myself a fan of Low Fantasy. But reading about the failings you've given here has definitely rekindled my interest in a High Fantasy system.

Can you maintain the mythic nature of species and keep them playable?
Can the mythic nature of dwarves, elves and trolls be kept?

It seems to me Tolkien relies largely on mystery and a deliberate distance to his elves to keep the feel, if I played an elf I would lose the mystery and distance.

Similarly, what about other motiffs, the noble quest will succeed because of the courage of central figure, can this work in a game setting?

Is the most common RP setting the least adaptable to RP?

Jeremy

Patrick Boutin wrote: But I have to face it: can I make something really original that will be High end Fantasy?!?! Is it really possible?!?!

What's define "Fantasy"?!?! Magic, swords, Goblins, Knights, anything else?!?!

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

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 why these races seem so real and compelling to us. Because there is a tremendous mass of material behind them. The elves seem mysterious in the books, because we are only given glimpses of them, but those glimpses are enough to realize that like the proverbial iceberg there is a completeness to them that we don't necessarily need to see to know its there.

Can any aspiring fantasy RPG writer really honestly believe they can capture anything approaching that in a couple of paragraphs...or even a couple of pages of race descriptions...

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. Because subconciously we fill in the other 1000 pages from our familiarity (meticulous obsession, or casual acquaintance) with Tolkien. We only need a couple of paragraphs to know what humans "are like" because we have all of human history to draw from. Same with the traditional races...we have all of Tolkien history to draw from.

Get away from the unholy trinity of elf, dwarf, and hobbit and there is no depth of broadly understood background to draw from. That means one of two things. Either the creator of the "new race" is going to have to develop all of that themselves (something better done with a novel than an RPG game) or else the race is going to feel like a hollow "man in a rubber suit" whose most important features are what kind of attribute modifiers you get from calling yourself a Kalhaxian Fire Imp.

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).

LOTR is high fantasy because Sauron is an evil fundimental to the creation of Middle Earth, and the whole of society is engaged in the fight. The presence of elves and dwarves is unnecessary to the definition.


- Alan

True, those things have been added by association rather than being part of the definition. Based on the initial post though, I think its clear that Patrick was using the definition + associations which is why I directed my comments in that direction.

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?

Patrick Boutin wrote: What's defines "Fantasy"?!?!

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.

Alan wrote: 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).

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

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

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

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?

Sylus Thane wrote: 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?

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

Sylus Thane wrote: 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.

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

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

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.

Demonsphan wrote: 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.

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

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.

greyorm wrote: 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."

greyorm wrote:
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.

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.

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

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

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

greyorm wrote:

Sylus Thane wrote: 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.

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

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

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

Professors of literature.

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.

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

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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

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?

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.

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

Valamir wrote: 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Sylus Thane wrote: The use of them has gotten to be so much that people in general begin to only associate them with the term of fantasy or high fantasy. Everytime someone mentions Tolkien it further reinstills the dependency that you should use the traditional races to be considered good fantasy. the release of the new movies does not help this either. Don't get me

Sylus Thane wrote: Sorry, there was no personal offense meant. :)
...Once again no offense meant, when dealing with a subjective topic I feel it's usually best if everyone starts off agreeing to be able to disagree. :)

not just in this thread, people make reference to traditional races and authors and such that can be used as models...Everytime someone mentions Tolkien it further reinstills the dependency that you should use the traditional races to be considered good fantasy.