OA's a fun one. Lotta stereotypes and conflation, but it's well-meaning enough that I think it earns points for being an effort.

3.x-era Oriental Adventures , instead of Kara-Tur, used Rokugan, the somewhat more... let's say "authentic-feeling" setting of the Legend of the Five Rings card game and RPG, specifically focused on a pseudo-Japanese society. But the book itself had rules for all the traditional Kara-Tur stuff that doesn't exist in Rokugan.

Quote from: The Butcher;785657Jeez, who pissed on your cereal today, cupcake?

Nothing, just this topic is about D&D settings. And it gets kinda sidetracked with an interesting discussion that really should have it's own thread.

I am not mad at all btw. I just didn't feel like taking the diplomatic route and steer the discussion right on track. Actually I don't think I am even capable of that.

With all apologies to jan paparazzi, I'm going to make one last post about The Other Topic just to reply to someone; after that, if someone wants to take it to another thread, that's fine with me.

Quote from: daniel_ream;785629The Wikipedia definitions of high and low fantasy align pretty much with the subgenre definitions I learned in university English lit several years before Wikipedia existed.

Since you brought up Wikipedia, let's take a look at Wikipedia. Several quotes from the article on High Fantasy:

QuoteHigh fantasy is a sub-genre of fantasy fiction, defined either by its setting in an imaginary world or by the epic stature of its characters, themes and plot.

(Emphasis mine.)

QuoteThese stories are often serious in tone and epic in scope, dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces.

QuoteGood versus evil is a common concept in high fantasy, and the character of evil is often an important concept in a work of high fantasyy [...]. Indeed, the importance of the concepts of good and evil can be regarded as the distinguishing mark between high fantasy and sword and sorcery. In many works of high fantasy, this conflict marks a deep concern with moral issues;

Now, admittedly, there's other stuff as well in the article, largely revolving around the "primary world/secondary world" notion; but that part of the definition has so many different sub-categories, exceptions and problematic examples that one has to wonder whether it's an workable definition in the first place. The non-ambiguous stuff is pretty much what I've said earlier.

QuoteAnd it's pretty damned obvious just from context and the basic rules of English that "high fantasy" and "low fantasy" refer to the amount of fantasy in a setting, not whether the storyline is epic. (That would be "epic fantasy".  See how words have meanings?)

Or it could mean that High Fantasy concerns itself with noble matters of Good and Evil, while Low Fantasy is vulgar, since it's about self-serving petty heroes - because "high" and "low" can also mean that. Or it cold mean that HF is abstract with its themes of morality, while LF is all about the direct, simple, non-metaphorical adventure. Because guess what, "high" and "low" also have those meanings, and your wanton choice of interpretation is in no way more obvious than these two. Your argument is frivolous and it's based on nothing more than an assertion.

Ok, I opened a can of worms.

The article clearly states low fantasy as set in the real world and not in a completely fictional world. So The Neverending Story is high fantasy and Charmed is low fantasy. As soon as a book or movie starts with "In a galaxy far away" or "In the kingdom of Anastia" you know it's completely fictional. If it's grounded in reality somehow it's low fantasy.

Gaming looks at things differently. If you play a guy who wants to defeat another guy who wants to Kamehameha an entire continent, than it's high fantasy. If it's more personal than it's low fantasy.

Again I stress there isn't a wrong definition. There are probably more defitions you can find. I was only aware of the gaming definition.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785907Ok, I opened a can of worms.

The article clearly states low fantasy as set in the real world and not in a completely fictional world. So The Neverending Story is high fantasy and Charmed is low fantasy. As soon as a book or movie starts with "In a galaxy far away" or "In the kingdom of Anastia" you know it's completely fictional. If it's grounded in reality somehow it's low fantasy.

According to the article, yes. But this is exactly why I wrote that the article's definition based on real/fictional worlds is rickety. Because if the above statement is true, then Lord of the Rings is also LF (which is patently untrue), because it takes place in a fictionalised version of long-ago Europe. So (like the article does), the definition must immediately weasel in an exception clause based on "yeah, well, it isn't REALLY like our own world, so it doesn't count". But guess what? If you accept that exception, then it also applies to the Hyborian Age, which is also ostensibly our world long ago, and also has a lot of fantastic elements (even if not quite as many) but which, unlike LotR, is not HF.

My relevant point was that IF you accept that the definition (literary or otherwise) is based on whether the world is "real", "like real" or "quite unlike the real one", THEN you immediately and inevitably have to start making byzantine exceptions and exceptions to exceptions; at which point I think it would be more honest to just admit that any definition along those lines is fundamentally flawed and a proper definition ought to be sought elsewhere.

QuoteGaming looks at things differently. If you play a guy who wants to defeat another guy who wants to Kamehameha an entire continent, than it's high fantasy. If it's more personal than it's low fantasy.

See, I only agree with that partially. I mean, sure, that's a pretty extreme case, but let's take something a TINY bit lower down on the powerscale: an ancient dragon is threatening to utterly destroy the kingdom, the PCs go and kill it. This could be HF just as well as LF, depending on WHY they're doing it, and on the established tone of the campaign at large. If they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts; if they're all a bunch of paladins in shining armour, clerics of the God of Light, and Robin Hoodesque rogues; and if they'd rather have the PCs die than give up; then it's HF. If they're a party of assassins, "take from everyone, give to me" thieves and mercenary Fighters; and only do it to get the dragon's hoard; and they'd rather just leave the doomed kingdom and never look back than die for it - then it's LF. Same dragon, same doom hanging over the kingdom, completely different theme.

QuoteAgain I stress there isn't a wrong definition. There are probably more defitions you can find. I was only aware of the gaming definition.

I think you're sort of right, where we differ is that I don't think this is a good thing. I think gamers, fantasy literature fans and academicians should have a shared and commonly understood nomenclature - only the one on Wikipedia is not the correct one.

EDIT: I've actually started a thread about all this and how it relates to D&D on the level of rules and systems over a year ago at K&KA in this thread. Thread never really got off the ground, but I still think that examining fantasy themes and how they relate to rules is a worthy topic to think about.

psst

I started a thread for low/high fluffernuggets