TheRPGSite

I see a lot of D&D topics on this site. I never quite got D&D. To me it always seemed like generic fantasy with nothing really special to offer. So what is so special about D&D? And are there any standout original settings available? I am mildly interested in Dark Sun, but that's about it. Obviously I am completely wrong of course. :p

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785066I see a lot of D&D topics on this site. I never quite got D&D. To me it always seemed like generic fantasy with nothing really special to offer. So what is so special about D&D? And are there any standout original settings available? I am mildly interested in Dark Sun, but that's about it. Obviously I am completely wrong of course. :p

D&D is an example of an uncommon case where the first to define a category largely gets it right and grows to dominate the ensuing hobby and industry.

The reason it succeeded is that the rules are largely simple enough for a novice to grasp yet there is just enough detail to hold ones interest for years at a time. Doesn't mean that it is the perfect game but good enough to the point that it held on to the share it earned by being first.

You have a class, it defines what you can do. You have levels, at higher levels you can do more things. You roll a d20 to hit. You need to roll equal to higher than a number based on the target's Armor Class, if you hit you do damage. Damage is subtracted from hit points. When hit points reach zero you or your opponent falls down unconscious or dead.  The rest is pretty much details.

Another key to D&D continued success was the focus on the Dungeon. Of all the myriad things that RPGs can do and set campaigns, the dungeon is among the easiest to grasp, make, and master for a novice to the hobby.

Take a sheet of graph paper, make a maze with rooms, add monsters to some room, treasures to others, scatter traps and tricks, and leave some empty. Instructions that are easy grasp and produces a setting that just compelling to hook the person into the larger hobby.

There are few other RPGs that make these claims to simplicity. In most cases it a matter of presentation rather than design or complexity. This mostly happens because alternative try to present themselves different than D&D.

The D&D brand faltered with the 4th edition of the game, however Pathfinder, using the D&D 3.X rules, continued the game's dominance. Now with the 5th edition it looks like we get two great sets of rules to share the crown.

The appeal of 5th edition is that retains some of the customization introduced with 3rd edition but simplifies and streamlines things so that the games runs as fast as classic editions of D&D. More important the D&D Brand is honing its presentation so that there is a path for novices to experience the full game, yet there are options and details for the long term fan of the game.

This is accomplished by supporting a free to download basic version of the 5e rules.  It only differs in terms of the number of the options and details in the document otherwise it is the 5th edition game that in the full Player's Handbook.

Finally because much of the 3.X rules were released under a open copyright license the D&D rules have been hacked, modified, and stretched to cover a bewildering array of genres, complexity, and play styles. This further cemented D&D as the leader both in the hobby and industry.

Because of this every type of setting has some support form D&D somewhere.

Now as for me, for nearly I did not play D&D as my primary system. I played Fantasy Hero, Harnmaster, and a lot of GURPS. I never had any particular problem with D&D except I wanted more detailed combat and more options for creating characters. So starting in the mid 1980s I turned to other system ending up with GURPS Fantasy for a long time.

But Matt Finch's Old School Primer made D&D click for me in a way it never had before. So I started publishing for the game. Because I starting publishing for it, I starting running adventures and campaigns. To eat my own dog food so to speak. I still like GURPS and my experience with the Old School Primer and D&D has helped my GURPS refereeing as well. But I also come to appreciates D&D's versatility and simplicity.  That all I had to do for a more gritty game is run it that way. That if I want character options, I don't have to have mechanics, I can just write details up for players to use on their character sheet. That it is the way I run the game and the background materials I provide that determines the feel and direction of the campaign not the rules.

The rise of Fate pretty confirmed the above for. That game literally boils down to a handful of mechanics. Everything is just made up stuff that players and referee create and write down on the character sheet. Not mechanics in a rulebook.

You start off with the blank slate of generic fantasy (Which is not a bad thing at all. Generic Fantasy is popular for the same reason Westerns were popular for decades: It's a universal canvas for adventure stories), and then you and the players add your personal touches (Sometimes big, sometimes very small, sometimes deliberately, sometimes inadvertently, sometimes just by indulging in what you like) slowly, over weeks or even years or decades of play, until it is anything but generic.

Don't use a pre-packaged setting: Download a single sheet of hex paper off the net and make your own little county or shire or island (You can then set this in a bigger setting if, say, you really like the Forgotten Realms or something). Your own little sandbox fairyland for players to root around in and manipulate. After a few sessions the balls start bouncing off each other. After a year or two it feels as alive and self-perpetuating as anything on a server.  

I like 5e D&D, but I can see how a newcomer might find it overwhelming. If that's the case, go for the Swords & Wizardry Whitebox or Labyrinth Lord, both of which are wonderful, very much "D&D" in style and play if not brand-name, and far simpler.

There's so many handles on D&D that tons of different kinds of people can grasp it. That's why D&D and retroclones.

I agree with estar. What makes D&D special is that it came first, there was nothing else like it at the time, and it worked. It set the stage for everything else. You can argue about the details, and my friends and I did argue, a lot, but the whole of it works well and was simple enough for most to understand rather quickly. Maybe 6 stats is not right for you, maybe alignment fails your smell test, maybe armor class and saving throws and hit points had their quirks you wanted to change, but that's alright. You could make changes without breaking the game.

It helped too that the early supplements were fun to look at and use. From the Monster Manual to Dungeon Geomorphs to The World of Greyhawk to modules like the Village of Hommelet, all that worked too.

Personally I think the game became dated and other systems improved on it, I moved on and didn't look back. But it still holds a place in my heart just because it was first. If you don't care about such things then true, it is generic (kinda had to be to attract new players back in the day) and not too special anymore.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785066So what is so special about D&D?

I think D&D is special as it has a long history of being whatever you want to make of it :)

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785066And are there any standout original settings available?

I suspect Planescape, Birthright, and Ravenloft may be of interest to you. My favourites are those that embrace the "being whatever you want to make of it" such as Greyhawk and Nerath.

Yeah, I get all this. Pick a class, enter a dungeon, kill some monsters and loot the room. Done plenty of this stuff with Warhammer FRPG and with all those pc games like Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. But are there any settings that stand out? Interesting worlds and cool backstory, that kind of stuff.

Quote from: Skywalker;785085I suspect Planescape, Birthright, and Ravenloft may be of interest to you. My favourites are those that embrace the "being whatever you want to make of it" such as Greyhawk and Nerath.

Ok there are already a few names I dont know anything about. Nerath and Birthright are unknown to me.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785089Ok there are already a few names I dont know anything about. Nerath and Birthright are unknown to me.

Nerath is the default setting for the 4e rules, it was never fully collected into one place, but rather spread out among various books and articles. It's set in a dark age following on from the fall of a large empire, with other empires in its more distant history.

Birthright is focused on the PCs as divinely-chosen rulers of small domains. It's... somewhat more mythic and political in nature.

I think you might also like Eberron, it's sort of an unusual, pulpy setting where magic has spawned an industrial revolution and it takes place in the aftermath of a sort of 100-year-long fantasy World War 1.

D&D settings? Planescape is incredible. Once you have moved behind the whole magitech thing, Eberron is quite something as well.

Both are a far call from "Enter dungeon, kill things, take stuff."


D&D itself?

It may well be the first place "standard fantasy" as it is known today first convalesced into one genre.

But the fun thing is, once you get into D&D you realize that it is in fact a genre in itself and a very fun one at that.

Empty your mind of all prejudice, jump into D&D and prepare to be amazed, because it is batshit fucking awesome insane.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785089Ok there are already a few names I dont know anything about. Nerath and Birthright are unknown to me.

Birthright is sort of Game of Thrones D&D.

Nerath was a essentially "not a setting" but hints of setting that existing in the 4e material. I liked it as it reminded me of early Greyhawk, which I learned through experiencing the world through playing my PC rather than a setting book. There is something remarkably organic about that approach - to discover the world and fill in blanks as you go.

I also liked Al-Qadim, which was a very well written Arabian Fantasy setting.

Quote from: Gold Roger;785099D&D itself?

It may well be the first place "standard fantasy" as it is known today first convalesced into one genre.

But the fun thing is, once you get into D&D you realize that it is in fact a genre in itself and a very fun one at that.

That's really true. In 1974, there was no "standard generic fantasy setting."  As much as any other cultural artifact, D&D set the standard.

D&D has allways been at its core a "make of it what you will" sort of blank slate if you so desired. I DM is mostly as a low to mid fantasy setting. Magic is not everywhere doing everything up to magic is more common but still not yet crawling out of the woodwork.

Settings.

Greyhawk/Blackmoor: This is the standard low to mid fantasy setting, depending on the era. Its a post-apoc reconstruction era setting with alot of open area and alot of feudal kingdoms and magic. Often a darker setting too on one side and weirder on the other.

Karameikos: The BX setting. Standard Low fantasy and rather spread out unsettled frontier feel till BECMI. The land originally had very large groupings of races rather than other settings scattershot or melting pot feels.

Forgotten Reamls: Mid to very high fantasy setting with alot of fantastical activity at every corner. Lots of ancient mysteries and plots by gods and otherworldly forces sprout up fairly regularly.

Mystara: BECMI/Cyclopedia. Mid fantasy setting based off Karameikos. More settled and now a post magitech disaster setting. Oddly its got alot of gradiose events, yet never really edges into high fantasy feel.

Dragonlance: This one is a tough call, its mostly a low fantasy setting, but has some mid fantasy elements. Plays very differently from other settings initially with a fluid alignment system and magic based on the waxing and waning of three moons. Dragons return after a thousand years and war breaks out. The setting was ruined in later editions and lost its unique feel over time.

Dark Sun: A really weird experimental setting. Mostly low fantasy and exceedingly deadly. A world utterly devastated by irresponsible magic and psionics use. Mostly a desert planet now of oft brutal savagry.

Ravenloft: Another odd experiment. A gothic horror dimension. This one had a mid to low fantasy feel to it overall.

Spelljammer: D&D in space. A really fun setting that is much wrongly maligned for its linking various settings and fleshing out those settigngs solar systems. Fun space travel and evocative ships both mundane and fantastical. Very much a high fantasy setting with lots of room for exploration, intrigue and space wars.

Red Steel: A sort of sub-setting for Mystara. Parts of it have a Swashbuckler feel and parts have nearly a Wild West feel. Gunfights with hand crossbows.
There were also some other odd sub-settings like an aztec setting whos name eludes me at the moment, Hollow World, Thunder Rift,

Birthright: A sort of kingdom level setting with some wargame elements.  Mostly a Mid fantasy feel from what Ive read.

Planescape: The outer planes as if it were fantasy Victorian England in Sigil and no less odd around the ring. Pretty much wall to wall high fantasy as you walk the streets with elementals, demons, celestials and everything else. And alot of normal folk treating it like it was just another street corner.

Eberron and others I have had no personal experience with at all so cannot really say.

Quote from: estar;785079D&D is an example of an uncommon case where the first to define a category largely gets it right and grows to dominate the ensuing hobby and industry.

Love this.

Quote from: LibraryLass;785096Birthright is focused on the PCs as divinely-chosen rulers of small domains. It's... somewhat more mythic and political in nature.

Think Highlander meets Game of Thrones (with really nasty, xenophobic elves).

QuoteI think you might also like Eberron, it's sort of an unusual, pulpy setting where magic has spawned an industrial revolution and it takes place in the aftermath of a sort of 100-year-long fantasy World War 1.

Think Indiana Jones meets Lord of the Rings (with magic, sentient robots).

These two are my favourite official D&D settings. They are not generic, both are very much their own thing.
If there's something that I don't like about them it would be that they feel a bit over-designed. (I like "organic" settings better, like the inofficial D&D settings Lüdinn or Pelinore.)

Quote from: Skywalker;785100Birthright is sort of Game of Thrones D&D.

Nerath was a essentially "not a setting" but hints of setting that existing in the 4e material. I liked it as it reminded me of early Greyhawk, which I learned through experiencing the world through playing my PC rather than a setting book. There is something remarkably organic about that approach - to discover the world and fill in blanks as you go.

I also liked Al-Qadim, which was a very well written Arabian Fantasy setting.

Birthright sounds very interesting. That kind of fantasy is in my wheelhouse.
Is Nerath's vibe different from Forgotten Realms? Is it more grittier like Greyhawk?

Quote from: Omega;785120Entire post

Thanks. I find Birthright, Planescape, Eberron, Dark Sun and Ravenloft interesting. So I got more digging to do. I think I have a setting addiction. ;)

D&D was created as a game of fantasy, not a depiction of a particular literary world (even the Commonwealth in Silverlock, which is ecumenical as worlds of novels go).

The Underworld or dungeon in the original presentation could feature anything imaginable, including transportation to very different subworlds in the game's potentially endless multiverse.

Arbitrarily excluding some possibilities is the judge's prerogative, but it did not define the D&D brand. That was at first a claim to distinction among rivals for runner-up status: RuneQuest, Warhammer, Talislanta, etc..

Nor was there at first a consensus on a particular mix of Tolkien, Howard and Moorcock elements as "standard" fantasy. That grew up as game products and novels became increasingly incestuous, spurred by the tremendous commercial success of the Dragonlance line. Perhaps the most latterly definitive of D&D has been the Forgotten Realms series.

Even among the "official" worlds, though, there are such diverse settings as Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Known World/Mystara (with its Hollow World extension), Spelljammer and Planescape. Empire of the Petal Throne was TSR's first spinoff from D&D, Metamorphosis Alpha a second.

Another idea to use is set a city somewhere, paint the world in very broad strokes, and then have the players get involved to define and fill in the details over time.

Might not be for everyone, but some groups might find it engaging/appealing.

Tabletop Roleplaying was born in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.
Dave came down to Lake Geneva and ran it for Gary Gygax and crew.
Gary Gygax in turn creates Castle Greyhawk and develops the D&D rule throughout the campaign with input from Dave.

The 1974 rules of D&D is largely a reflection of what happened in Gygax's campaign with added materials on various things that Dave and Gary thought would be of interest. Like Naval combat, Aerial combat, etc, etc.

It just worked out that the combination of the shit Dave and Gary made up proved flexible enough to cover a lot of things people wanted to experience with fantasy. This was likely because Dave and Gary drew on a broad spectrum of culture rather just a narrow focus recreating something specifically. This can be seen in anecdotes about Blackmoor and Greyhawk where players experienced various side adventures and the dungeon were expanded to encompassed more things then just a maze with room filled with monsters and treasure. For example reaching the bottom of Greyhawk sent you to China. There was a Machine Level, a City of the Gods, a Bottled City, etc, etc.

That what I took away from reading various anecdotes, Playing at the World, and Hawk & Moor.

Guys from Blackmoor flew to Greyhawk aboard "tarns" a la A Tarnsman of Gor. The reference sheets in the boxed set included encounter tables for Barsoom. The original example of expanding character types was a Balrog.The cleric (created to oppose a vampire character) owes a bit to many sources, Hammer Studios movies being prominent. The monk came from the Destroyer novels and the Kung Fu TV show. The thief is a mashup of R.E. Howard's Zamorian tomb robbers, Grey Mouser, Cugel the Clever and Jack of Shadows. Ioun Stones and the general rationale for spell-casting came from the Dying Earth. The continual light spell evokes the Face in the Abyss, as well as various lost cities encountered by Conan. Farmer's World of Tiers series focused on adventures in puzzle/trap/monster laden "dungeon" worlds. A.E. Van Vogt,  L. Sprague de Camp, H.P. Lovecraft, and Michael Moorcock are also among the many sources of one thing or another.

Traveller likewise started as an eclectic smorgasbord of science-fiction references, not as the game of the Third Imperium.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785203Is Nerath's vibe different from Forgotten Realms? Is it more grittier like Greyhawk?

Yeah, kind of, but not in the same way as GH.

As others have noted D&D largely shaped 'generic fantasy.' But if you're looking for stuff that is particular to D&D (or most strongly associated with it):

• Underground labyrinths as a common (if not default) adventure setting.


• Lots of traps and puzzles in said labyrinths.


• Pseudo-Christian clerics as common characters and non-player characters.


• The Underdark, a vast subterranean world filled with creepy monsters and races.


• Drow (see above).


• Slimes, oozes, and jellies as common monsters.


• A huge list of spells, some generic but many weirdly particular.


• Vast assortment of magic items, typically found in underground labyrinths.

Omega's post in particular gives a pretty good run-down of classic D&D settings but, being a Birthright fanboy, I take exception with just about everyone's description of BR.

Quote from: Skywalker;785100Birthright is sort of Game of Thrones D&D.

Quote from: Omega;785120Birthright: A sort of kingdom level setting with some wargame elements.  Mostly a Mid fantasy feel from what Ive read.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;785149Think Highlander meets Game of Thrones (with really nasty, xenophobic elves).

Yeah, it's exactly like Game of Thrones, except for the relative lack of smut. And for having dwarves, elves, clerics and other D&D tropes. And for kings having divine blood complete with minor spell-like abilities. And for archetypal monsters (The Gorgon, The Chimera, etc.) being mutated scions of the bloodlines of an evil god. And for the existence of a Shadow World ruled by faerie courts. And...

It's only similar to GoT/ASoIaF as far as it's got kings and castles and a focus on politics and rulership. Hardly BR-specific distinctions as far as D&D settings go; rulership gets mentioned (though admittedly not codified into the rules) as early as OD&D. Birthright's crucial difference is offering DMs with the opportunity of putting PCs on the throne right off the bat, at first level if desired.

Birthright more or less presume that PCs are "blooded scions", descended from ancient hero-kings who fought a mythic battle side-by-side with the gods. Blooded scions are the only ones who can take up positions of leadership (ruler, guildmaster, high priest, etc.) within the setting's uminspired but serviceable domain management and mass combat systems.

Bloodlines have a strength score, may grant minor spell-like powers and bonuses depending on which god you're descended from, and can be "stolen" when scions duel to the death. Scions of the evil god sometimes mutate into monsters called awnshegh, many of which have gone on to become the genitors of monster races (e.g. The Gorgon, The Minotaur, The Vampire).

If Birthright has a schtick, the way I see it, it's being Fairy Tale D&D with vague Arthurian overtones. "The King and the Land are one" is a big deal, with your Bloodline score directly impacting your ability to rule your realm.

Great setting, certainly felt different from the local poisons of choice (Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms) in my neck of the woods back in the day.

Totally forgot.

There is also Lankhmar, though never seen it. Based off the novels.

And 2nd ed D&D put out about a half dozen "historical" setting books.
Rome and Vikings comes to mind, and I believe there was a Age of Chivalry one as well.

Dragon Magazine upped the ante with even more setting ideas like one based in a prehistoric era, and another that was Aztec/Mayan themed.

Dragon/Polyhedron also opened up a few more. Deathnet was set in a computer VR and Mecha Crusade (think that was the name) was a giant mecha themed one. Probably lots more I never saw.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785203Is Nerath's vibe different from Forgotten Realms? Is it more grittier like Greyhawk?

It's not FR. The blank spaces reminded me of early Greyhawk, but for obvious reasons it lacks the Gygaxian flourishes.

Quote from: Omega;785120Settings.

*SNIP*

Partially to nitpick and partially to clear up any confusion for the OP or others:

I think you're using the phrases "low fantasy" and "high fantasy" incorrectly. What you seem to be referring to is how common and powerful magic is in a given setting - that's "low MAGIC" or "high MAGIC" setting.

"High fantasy" and "low fantasy" (there's no "mid-fantasy") are a completely different concept relating to the style and conventions of a story (or RP setting). High fantasy is stuff like Lord of the Rings: epic conflict with the world hanging in the balance between the objectively existant forces of Good and Evil, thus capitalised, with Heroes and Villains. Low fantasy is stuff like Dying Earth or Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser: low-stake stories where the heroes' lives might be in the danger, but the world usually isn't; morality being all shades of grey without paragons of virtue or utter villains. This distinction has nothing to do with how common or rare magic is in the world.

Quote from: Premier;785499Partially to nitpick and partially to clear up any confusion for the OP or others:

I think you're using the phrases "low fantasy" and "high fantasy" incorrectly. What you seem to be referring to is how common and powerful magic is in a given setting - that's "low MAGIC" or "high MAGIC" setting.

"High fantasy" and "low fantasy" (there's no "mid-fantasy") are a completely different concept relating to the style and conventions of a story (or RP setting). High fantasy is stuff like Lord of the Rings: epic conflict with the world hanging in the balance between the objectively existant forces of Good and Evil, thus capitalised, with Heroes and Villains. Low fantasy is stuff like Dying Earth or Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser: low-stake stories where the heroes' lives might be in the danger, but the world usually isn't; morality being all shades of grey without paragons of virtue or utter villains. This distinction has nothing to do with how common or rare magic is in the world.

Is Sword and Sorcery a form of low fantasy? Oh I see. In gaming terms high and low fantasy tell you about the scope of the game. In other words how epic it is. HF is very epic and LF isn't.

Literature uses a different definition. HF has a lot of fantasy elements like magic and fantasy races. LF hasn't. So Conan is HF in literature and LF in gaming. Supernatural is the other way around. Thanks Wikipedia.

Quote from: Premier;785499"High fantasy" and "low fantasy" (there's no "mid-fantasy") are a completely different concept relating to the style and conventions of a story (or RP setting). High fantasy is stuff like Lord of the Rings: epic conflict with the world hanging in the balance between the objectively existant forces of Good and Evil, thus capitalised, with Heroes and Villains. Low fantasy is stuff like Dying Earth or Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser: low-stake stories where the heroes' lives might be in the danger, but the world usually isn't; morality being all shades of grey without paragons of virtue or utter villains. This distinction has nothing to do with how common or rare magic is in the world.

Exactly so. D&D went from a low-fantasy game to a high-fantasy game not because of ubiquitous magic or high-powered PCs, but because the default game mode (as presented by the publishers) went from the exploits of treasure-seeking tomb robbers to the world-saving sagas of heroes. Looting the tomb of Egoran the Red to find a fabled crown worth a fortune? Low fantasy. Heading the call of the high cleric of Pelor to save the kingdom from the ravages of the Necromancer King? High fantasy.

Quote from: Haffrung;785515Exactly so. D&D went from a low-fantasy game to a high-fantasy game not because of ubiquitous magic or high-powered PCs, but because the default game mode (as presented by the publishers) went from the exploits of treasure-seeking tomb robbers to the world-saving sagas of heroes. Looting the tomb of Egoran the Red to find a fabled crown worth a fortune? Low fantasy. Heading the call of the high cleric of Pelor to save the kingdom from the ravages of the Necromancer King? High fantasy.

Correct according to the RPG definition. According to the literature definition both are high fantasy.

All genre discussions are messy and silly.

The thing about 'low fantasy' is it's not really a genre, it's a reaction to a genre -- to high fantasy.

So different stuff is determined as low fantasy mainly based on what element of high fantasy is being reacted to. High fantasy is usually epic, highly magical, has elves and dwarves, etc.

So stories that explicitly don't... hey, low fantasy.

This is apart from, say, sword and sorcery, which is more of a positively defined genre than a reactive one.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785518Correct according to the RPG definition. According to the literature definition both are high fantasy.

I'm not sure that's so. I for one have never seen your definitions of high and low fantasy applied to fantasy literature any more than I have gaming.

Quote from: Haffrung;785515Exactly so. D&D went from a low-fantasy game to a high-fantasy game not because of ubiquitous magic or high-powered PCs, but because the default game mode (as presented by the publishers) went from the exploits of treasure-seeking tomb robbers to the world-saving sagas of heroes. Looting the tomb of Egoran the Red to find a fabled crown worth a fortune? Low fantasy. Heading the call of the high cleric of Pelor to save the kingdom from the ravages of the Necromancer King? High fantasy.

Thats what I meant.

That and for me low fantasy is closer to real world, fewer monster and fewer fantastical elements. More emphasis on man-to-man conflict. Mid fantasy mixes it up in various ways. Conan stories ranged in the mid fantasy level. Magic and monsters are present. But oft in the background or as the final conflict.

Obviously others have different ideas what is low or high, etc.

Over time most of the TSR settings have escalated gradually from low to mid and then ramped up to high. Forgotten Realms being the posterchild for that in feel. Course nothing stopping any DM from toning it down to levels they prefer. You even see that in the novels.

And this is hilarious. Another setting I totally forgot about which is ironic as I use the hardback as my work-folder.

Council of Wyrms: You play dragons in a dracocentric world. Pretty much high fantasy across the board for obvious reasons. Neet idea and well thought out. But a faction of rabid fans I had to deal with eventually turned me off the setting.

Quote from: LibraryLass;785541I'm not sure that's so. I for one have never seen your definitions of high and low fantasy applied to fantasy literature any more than I have gaming.

Got it from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_fantasy

Maybe this is better for another topic.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785514Is Sword and Sorcery a form of low fantasy?

I think there's a bit of wriggle room when answering that question, because some of these terms are relatively loosely defined (relative to well-established literary thematic notions such as "Western" or "Hard Science Fiction"). But having said that, it certainly is much closer to Low Fantasy, yes. Whether it's an actual subset or just a different theme that happens to overlap in many areas is a different quesion.

QuoteOh I see. In gaming terms high and low fantasy tell you about the scope of the game. In other words how epic it is. HF is very epic and LF isn't.

That's part of the thing. An equally important part is the question of morality. HF has black-and-white morals with clear heroes and villains, and an objective sense of Good and Evil - and the epic conflict revolves around this moral opposition. LF has morally amgibuous characters and the conflict is usually not a mainly moral one.

QuoteLiterature uses a different definition. HF has a lot of fantasy elements like magic and fantasy races. LF hasn't. So Conan is HF in literature and LF in gaming. Supernatural is the other way around. Thanks Wikipedia.

Personally, I have some reservations about the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think it's not unfair to say that the exploration of various themes (NOT "genres", tecnically!) within Fantasy literature has been so far largely neglected by academia, and consequently the Wiki articles are suspect because their authors tried to build them on academic foundations that just don't really exist.

Really, at this point a large swath of this terminology is poorly defined, if at all.

Quote from: Premier;785622Personally, I have some reservations about the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think it's not unfair to say that the exploration of various themes (NOT "genres", tecnically!) within Fantasy literature has been so far largely neglected by academia, and consequently the Wiki articles are suspect because their authors tried to build them on academic foundations that just don't really exist.

The 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. And 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?)

Gamers have a multi-decade history of thinking they know a lot more about literature (and history and science and probability and demographics...) than they actually do, and then insisting that their corrupted definitions are the correct universal ones. Fans are Slans, indeed.

I'm not acquainted with the notion of low vs, high fantasy. To the best of my knowledge, Fritz Leiber coined the term "sword and sorcery" as a category distinguishing tales like his and R.E. Howard's from tales like Tolkien's. What he said on the subject might be enlightening, but so might what Alan Kay had to say about object-oriented programming; and in practice, oop seems to be defined more as "like C++" than "like Smalltalk."

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. And 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?)

Gamers have a multi-decade history of thinking they know a lot more about literature (and history and science and probability and demographics...) than they actually do, and then insisting that their corrupted definitions are the correct universal ones. Fans are Slans, indeed.

Of course wikipedia can be wrong, but I think most of the times it's pretty accurate. It uses footnotes to source material and it's consensus based. You can see the discussions for reaching a consensus on wikipedia if you click the talk tab.

That being said the gaming definition isn't wrong. It's just different. Because gaming is all about playing at a certain scale. And books like Game of Thrones also influenced the new definition of "low fantasy" because they are gritty.

If you ported the literary definitions over to our little hobby, not only Tékumel, Talislanta and Glorantha would be high fantasy, but the whole damn World of Darkness, old and new, would be low fantasy. Which amuses me to no end.

Quote from: The Butcher;785648If you ported the literary definitions over to our little hobby, not only Tékumel, Talislanta and Glorantha would be high fantasy, but the whole damn World of Darkness, old and new, would be low fantasy. Which amuses me to no end.

That's correct. Can we now stop this discussion?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;785650That's correct. Can we now stop this discussion?

Jeez, who pissed on your cereal today, cupcake?

Quote from: The Butcher;785648If you ported the literary definitions over to our little hobby, not only Tékumel, Talislanta and Glorantha would be high fantasy, but the whole damn World of Darkness, old and new, would be low fantasy. Which amuses me to no end.

Maybe in game circles it corresponds to the old jargon (in APA zines, anyhow) of "high entropy" -- lots of powerful magic or sufficiently advanced technology whizzing around,  effecting great changes in the state of the world as the campaign goes on?

Aaaaand, more D&D settings.

Oriental Adventures: Some hate it. Personally I liked it alot. Very fun expression of Chinese and Japanese martial arts and sorcery movies of the era. Kara-tur was interesting if a bit hap-hazard in feel. Needed a little more regional distinction and flavour. But what is there is enough to build off of. The modules are very hit and miss though. This one sits around the mid to high fantasy scale. Usually alot going on out in the open and in the shadows.

Hollow World: A Mystara setting expansion mostly. But it feels like it should have been its own thing really. A very unusual setting idea with the locked down mostly forever unchanging cultures and races as a sort of titanic museum of what was. Need idea but jeebus the book is so utterly bland and devoid of life and to say it is sparsely illustrated is an understatement. Walls and walls of text page after page. But then the setting itself is in a way devoid of vitality.

A couple of modules are essentially mini-settings too. TSR looooved to experiment.

Quote from: Omega;785702Aaaaand, more D&D settings.

Oriental Adventures: Some hate it. Personally I liked it alot. Very fun expression of Chinese and Japanese martial arts and sorcery movies of the era. Kara-tur was interesting if a bit hap-hazard in feel. Needed a little more regional distinction and flavour. But what is there is enough to build off of. The modules are very hit and miss though. This one sits around the mid to high fantasy scale. Usually alot going on out in the open and in the shadows.

Hollow World: A Mystara setting expansion mostly. But it feels like it should have been its own thing really. A very unusual setting idea with the locked down mostly forever unchanging cultures and races as a sort of titanic museum of what was. Need idea but jeebus the book is so utterly bland and devoid of life and to say it is sparsely illustrated is an understatement. Walls and walls of text page after page. But then the setting itself is in a way devoid of vitality.

A couple of modules are essentially mini-settings too. TSR looooved to experiment.

The Smoking Mirror scenario was a trip. As an ERB fan, I was initially cool both to this pseudo-Pellucidar and to the colonized semi-Barsoom of  GDW's Space: 1889 (and also thought "steam punk" a silly term); but they grew on me.

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 (http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11196). 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