TheRPGSite

I see a lot of comments about "traditional" fantasy roleplaying, and while I get the impression different people often mean different things by it, I've tried to sort out what it is people are complaining about, and why its absence is a problem.

Take the "archetypal character" sort of traditional discussed recently. Is there a great deal of value to be had out of playing standard fantasy archetypes, the disowned ranger, the bearded wizard, the halfling thief, ad nauseum? What sort of game do you get out of this, and why do you enjoy it so much?

Another way "traditional" is used indicates a desire to return to a simpler style of play, one in which the challenges raised are, for instance, traps and monsters, and not moral ambiguities and political conflicts. I've played very little of games which are "traditional" in this sense, but I don't see how you'd get much out of it for a very long time; after all, how many monsters can you kill for treasure before it gets a little, you know, same-ish? At that point, might you not as well just be playing computer games with the same friends? [Which is what we do when the overwhelming urge to just kill shit without serious plot or thought comes along.]

I'm trying to ask the questions in the most value-neutral way I can, because I won't learn anything if people just show up and start yelling. I really would like to know why these particular styles of gaming are valued, because currently, I do not.

I would also like to understand why "traditional" is held to be a value-positive term: I see it used most often to mean, "The Right Way," with all "new" ways of playing being not just undesirable, but really shitty. To me, a game full of dungeon crawls and monster-slaying is personally uninteresting, but I don't really think less of the person who plays that game; why is it that someone who plays a "nontraditional" game is not just different, but a son of a bitch who needs to be taught a lesson? [I guess that boils down to the "Why do people try to convince others that games suck?" question.]

What is "traditional?" Why is "traditional" better, without discussion of any other issues, than nontraditional? Or do you just happen to like it more?

I don't know that traditional is better than non-traditional.  But it's a cool thing that many people would like to emulate in their games.

To the extent that rules-sets make that hard to do (which is a very debateable point, but setting that aside...) that would be a loss, same as if games made it hard to play (say) comedy or romance in them.

Does that make sense?

Traditional fantasy is easy to grok for participants; just about everyone knows the standard tropes.

I think a lot of the complaints you're reading here on this site with regard to trad fantasy has to do specifically with D&D.  Up through 3.5e (even though I don't play it or like it very much, I will admit it's not as far removed from the D&D of olde as some say it is), D&D has been THE big trad fantasy game.  Traditional fantasy has long been a part of D&D's identity (especially earlier editions, as the artwork and advertising was securely in the traditional mode...which explains a lot of the hate for 2e and 3e as they explored different modes of fantasy and reflected it in their artwork and advertising).  In the old days if you wanted something more exotic, you played RuneQuest, EPT, etc.

A lot of what you're seeing here and on sites like Dragonsfoot is a reaction against those who are apparently trying to make D&D into something other than a traditional fantasy game.

I'm sympathetic to these feelings, by the way.  D&D will always be, to me, the "traditional" fantasy game.  I don't understand why those who want the game to be more like, say, Exalted don't just play Exalted.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't know that traditional is better than non-traditional.  But it's a cool thing that many people would like to emulate in their games.

To the extent that rules-sets make that hard to do (which is a very debateable point, but setting that aside...) that would be a loss, same as if games made it hard to play (say) comedy or romance in them.

Does that make sense?

Nice to see you back, Tony. :D

-clash

I think that the issue really is that the games rules as written might not allow the variety of games that would include the tradditional fantasy.
For me tradditional fantasy would be the stuff you read in novels so everything from LoTR through to the Lies of Locke Lamora. I guess its a lower level of power and a certain grittyness. The opposite would be that which you find in the CRPGs which although seeming to contain much of the same essence are infact more about High Power, extra-cool and high impact.

The second division you mention the traddional type of dungeon crawl versus more complex and subtle games is something I haven't even considered before. I mean we gave up on dungeon crawls as a game idea after about the 5th time we tried it 'cos it does get repetitive. I don't think many players would like a game that restricted you to that way of playing and I think in this regard 4e woudl be a great system if that was the type of game you were into.

I think that if 4e D&D doesn't allow you to replicate the type of fantasy that you want to play its moving away from it's original market. I always felt that the strength of D&D, and why we always came back to it after trying MERP or RQ, or Whatever, was that you could do anything in the system that was done in your favourite fantasy novel. This is certainly not true of all systems. You wouldn't attempt to run a Star Wars games with a Dark Heresy ruleset. Yes you could do it, you could manipulate the various components and house rule stuff but it just wouldn't feel right. In the same way if 4e adopts an esthetic, from art through to the rule system and structure, that promotes what I would call a MMO type of game, but others would perhaps correctly call it an Encounters based game, one in which feats and special powers and the like replace skills and roleplaying as the main focus, then I think the more gritty less 'dungeonpunk' games will be harder to pull off.
I don't know about you but I don't really see Gandalf chucking out a magic missile each round of combat or the Grey Mouser using his charisma to shift the troll back 2 squares or Galahad using a Mark ability etc ... I know this is all doable and you can interpret each of the powers to fit how you play but the whole structure of the thing the design, the artwork (that we have seen) is pushing you toward a different type of game.

The fairy tales of my youth had elves and witches, not half-dragons and psionicists.  That's why traditional fantasy is still important.  It resonates with the bedrock of our collective imagination.  Branching out to new things is also important, but sometimes you need to touch base with where you came from.

Well, Engine, you've covered a couple different definitions for traditional. The reasons for digging one may not be the same as the reasons for another.

Traditional in the sense of "archetypal character"--actually this could be broadened to include types of enemies, style of magic and its general role in the gameworld, etc. I think the main attraction here is familiarity as a building block. Players know roughly how things work at a low level, so it's easier for them to focus on other goals without having to spend a lot of time learning how the world works. This is a similar attraction to that of a favorite rules set. (Now, granted that "traditional" often means more "like D&D" than "like fantasy literature". But since most fantasy gamers started with D&D, it's not an issue.)

Another attraction is simply enjoying the texture of the "traditional" game. I should mention that I'm a bit of a dissenter here--not a huge fan of "D&D" fantasy beyond the familiarity aspect for gamers. Still, the distance from "D&D fantasy" to the stuff I prefer (historical, S&S, "genuinely traditional" fantasy are main ones) isn't that far.

There may be other reasons for liking "traditional" in the first sense, but I'll leave those to others. For people whose reasons are outlined above, the problems with "non-traditional" include, first, a steep learning curve, and second, the fact that "non-traditional" often takes you even farther from your preferred "feel". I don't really know what exactly a Tiefling is, but it doesn't sound like something from S&S or Arthurian fantasy, certainly not as a protagonist. In fact "non-traditional" is often weird seemingly for the sake of being weird, flashy and not particularly deep in itself. So the traditionalist shies away partly because it may be a warning sign.

The second sense of traditional may be attractive simply because people enjoy the type of activity. It's not the fictional content so much as the game activity--solving puzzles, exploring and analyzing a location, managing resources, tactical maneuver, etc. You're right that there's a similarity to video games, but video games lack the easy flexibility of tabletop gaming, not to mention the sociability; they also require additional skills that people may not enjoy exercising.

I am not a computer nor have the ability to spew out infinite information about my setting (although it seems I can come close at times ;-) ). By relying on standard tropes my players can correctly assume many things about my setting. This makes the games more accessible and more importantly FUN for them.

This is the same reason I use real names for gods, insitutions, and ranks. Set, Mitra, Thoth, Nephthys, etc. While my Set isn't Egypt's Set the stereotypes that are associated with the name are correct for the causal knowledge of the everyman in my world. "Oh Set evil god" "Oh Thoth God of Knowledge".

Later as they get into my campaign they can learn why my Set is not like Egypt's Set or Howard's Set, or Marvel Comic's Set.

If you respect the tropes and understand where they come from, like Tolkein did, then you will find they have a lot more utility and depth then stuff that totally made up.

For example the magligned Gnomes that are not in 4th edition. Where did Gygax get them? What legends had them, what can we use from folklore to make them interesting. Of course Dragonlance had the first instance of tinker Gnomes that seemed to forever mark the Gnomes much like Tasselhof's kender-halflings. But if that concept grew stale then the older legends should have been looked at for inspiration for the new Gnome rather than jettison them all together.

Rob Conley

Quote from: Elliot WilenWell, Engine, you've covered a couple different definitions for traditional. The reasons for digging one may not be the same as the reasons for another.

I was just about to post this. I've never really felt that out-of-the-box D&D (and that's what spurred this thread, right?) did "traditional" literary fantasy that well. It was aimed at little slices of it but mostly it was wearing some thrown on, ill-fitting dark paradoy of literary fantasy. Like an Edgar Suit. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oNRNUqr3fY) Not entirely surprising given the history of D&D.  I found it a bit easier with 3e (and 3e's version of multiclassing, if anything, helped) but still.... :shrug:

Quote from: DwightI've never really felt that out-of-the-box D&D...did "traditional" literary fantasy that well.

Keeping a couple things in mind - I don't play traditional fantasy, and I don't like Tolkein particularly much - does/did &D keep you from being able to play traditional literary fantasy, or did it just encourage a different style of play?

I've found D&D bends easily to my will. The rules almost never have an exact fit for who I want to play and how, but they stretch very easily. Maybe it's my forgiving GM - "You want to do what? Are there any rules for that? Well, let's go play darts and find a way to make it fit." - but I've never gotten the impression that D&D prevented me from doing something, only that it maybe didn't have rules to precisely cover it [particularly, as you note, out-of-box, where you don't have any real rules for, say, being undead].

My question, then, is one of intended emphasis: could you still press traditional literary fantasy out of D&D with some difficulty, or did it somehow make that impossible? I would have thought it'd be a close fit, actually, but I probably only think that because D&D is closer to traditional than it is to how I play. :)

Quote from: Enginedoes/did &D keep you from being able to play traditional literary fantasy, or did it just encourage a different style of play?

Playing something recognizable as D&D and "traditional" fantasy simply doesn't mix IMO. The biggest problem, front and center, is magic. D&D is suppositly "Vancian" but IMO it doesn't even convey that. :(

It's a total rewrite to get there.

I don't really dig trad fantasy all that much - don't get me started on elves & dwarves :D

A lot of it has to do with the "fantasy" I read while growing up and the stuff I read now. M.John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Le Guinn...

BECMI is what I consider D&D the rest of the editions, I consider generic systems which I use to create non-trad games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: DwightPlaying something recognizable as D&D and "traditional" fantasy simply doesn't mix IMO. The biggest problem, front and center, is magic. D&D is suppositly "Vancian" but IMO it doesn't even convey that. :(

It's a total rewrite to get there.

Ah, now that's not something I'd thought of. D&D's magic system would definitely make traditional literary fantasy extremely difficult! Some sort of utter replacement mechanic would need to be used, and it would need to depend heavily on your inspiration. I would be very interested in seeing such a system, but would be horrified to have to create it.

I don't think "vancian magic" (and I use the term loosely, as D&D magic resembles zelazny more than vance these day) is a meaningful distinction by which to conclude that D&D does not or cannot replicate traditional fantasy. Some fantasy has very explicit rules about how magic operates, and invariably most of those won't match D&D. But would it be out of place in a novel or story? No, I don't really think so. I think enough are suitably vague about how magic operates that even if D&D style magic was at work, you'd never know it.

Quote from: jrientsThe fairy tales of my youth had elves and witches, not half-dragons and psionicists.  That's why traditional fantasy is still important.  It resonates with the bedrock of our collective imagination.  Branching out to new things is also important, but sometimes you need to touch base with where you came from.

While I certainly can see where you're coming from-and in part agree with you... Well actually I guess I'd actually say we completely agree, but we're just saying it in two different fashions.

I too look to the original source materials for inspiration, which I guess does make them important to at least me.

Quote from: EngineTake the "archetypal character" sort of traditional discussed recently. Is there a great deal of value to be had out of playing standard fantasy archetypes, the disowned ranger, the bearded wizard, the halfling thief, ad nauseum? What sort of game do you get out of this, and why do you enjoy it so much?

The advantage is there's a shared language there. Yeah, the archetypes you list are standard, and that means not one single second has to be wasted trying to define what your character is. That's an advantage, I think, since I think traditional gaming is more about what the characters do and defining who they are that way, than caring about who they were before the game started.

Quote from: EngineTo me, a game full of dungeon crawls and monster-slaying is personally uninteresting

I hate that a lot of the old modules were set up the way they were, because they seem to have defined the entirety of what D&D was... on a selective basis.

I do believe they were designed to be dropped into ongoing campaigns, and were never supposed to be "OK this module's finished, I just got this new module and we'll play that one next week, OK?"

Sure, you've got things like the Slavers series, but those were originally tournament adventures. (in fact, aren't the tournament adventures the only examples of pure dungeon crawl from the "old school" TSR stuff? On the Advanced side at least?)

Take the Giants series. You can't just go in there, kick doors down, and kill what's behind them. You're dead meat, really quick, if you do that. And by the time you get to D1, that's a completely different beast altogether. And getting to D3... that's not a dungeon bash at all.

Take the archetypal beginning modules - Village of Hommlet and Keep on the Borderlands. There's a reason that the "home base" takes up so many of the pages of those modules. Lots of intrigue and role-playing to be had that greatly influences what happens in the dungeon. Sure, Keep requires a ton more customization (feature, not bug), but to me that's a better example of how a campaign should be set up.

(hhmmm, is it a good thing Gygax never got his grand Castle Greyhawk in print? naaah, but it wouldn't have helped what I'm talking about here.)

And take a look at the DMG and all the rules in there that almost nobody ever uses. All that hireling and sage and naval combat and NPC personality stuff and intelligent swords and relics and... there was much more to be done that what most people did.

Traditional fantasy is an enjoyable genre for many (including myself), in the same manner that hard science fiction is enjoyable for others. I don't know if I'd use the term desirable. It's desirable for me, but might not be for others.

To me the term "traditional" doesn't implicitly have a value connotation attached to it, more of a historical descriptor. Being traditional may or may not be good depending on your viewpoint.

I personally think there is a great value in being able to play traditional archetypes. They come with a degree of familiarity that helps people ease into the game. Oftentimes when I pick up a new game or system as a player, I stick with a common archetype. Later on, as I become more familiar with the system and setting, I'll expand my horizons and come up with a more original concept.

I don't have much use for the style of play that simply involved killing monsters, avoiding traps and acquiring treasure. I don't equate that type of play with the term traditional either. My favorite early campaigns always involved plot, intrigue and a good deal of interaction. These early and enjoyable campaigns form my view of traditional fantasy roleplaying. Character development, story and personality played a much bigger role than character optimization.

I guess my main points are:
- Traditional as a genre can come with a desirable degree of familiarity for some.
- Traditional doesn't necessarily imply a positive value for me.
- Traditional doesn't equate to 1st-edition dungeon crawls in my opinion.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't think "vancian magic" (and I use the term loosely, as D&D magic resembles zelazny more than vance these day) is a meaningful distinction by which to conclude that D&D does not or cannot replicate traditional fantasy.

WTF? Have you lost your marbles? ((EDIT: Ok, maybe that's a bit over the top there :o :keke:  ))  It is an entirely meaningful distinction, if not the primary one. 'Magic' (AKA supernatural) is what defines Fantasy as a genre. Specifics and generalities of the magic of a setting is also a major distinction within the overall genre.

QuoteSome fantasy has very explicit rules about how magic operates, and invariably most of those won't match D&D.

Do any match D&D? So off you go to kit-bash (see below).

QuoteBut would it be out of place in a novel or story? No, I don't really think so.

Well I suppose they fit in Dragonlance (with some colour to patch things up). :rolleyes: But other that, nah. And really that's why you have RPGPundit yacking about . Because D&D went off and created a new stream of magic that wasn't really that much like others that had gone before it. Except Pundit is ignoring that the hard break was at the genisis of D&D and it never really included the tools .

Of course there-in is the key. Kit-bashing with AD&D was pretty much all trash-bin and bash, dick-all kit.

QuoteI think enough are suitably vague about how magic operates that even if D&D style magic was at work, you'd never know it.

If anything D20 has shown over and over that D&D's magic is a pretty damn poor core to capture flavour of different fantasy settings, and that's when it's actually been written with the intent of trying to be a generic system. The task in AD&D was, as Engine put it, horrific.

P.S. Subtle magic and D&D? Umm, yeah.

Quote from: David RI don't really dig trad fantasy all that much - don't get me started on elves & dwarves :D

I'm a card carry member of the Elf Hater's Local 666. ;)  I'd never enjoyed having elves in a game. Shadowrun came close, if not tolerable if you toss out the handful (but quickly multiplying) canon Immortal Elves.

That is until recently. I had a player start playing a mechinically very Tolkienesque Elf. He initially wanted to do it effectively as a 'ninja elf' with his r33t sneaky magic powers. But I held the line and got him to dig deeper, and he surprised me with the first take on elves I'm cool with, and I've been playing off it with the other elves in the setting. He's a xenophobic, elitist, clanish bastard with a bit of a hot-head (to things that later, on reflection, cause him to grieve) . He makes decisions that, for me, really strike the right chord of what a nigh immortal would. For example he has this brother that's a slaver, of all races if the price is right, that sold the rest of his own family into slavery. The PC, with the help of the other PCs, captured the brother. There was also a couple of other elves that they freed that were slaves in transport at the time. The PC was faced with dishing out a capital punishment vengence that he so desperately wanted yet if he had killed his brother he would have become an outcast, a "Slayer" of his own kin. Destined to walk the forests alone, never returning home and certainly not passing into the West when his Grief overtook him.

The other PCs, being humans, would have simply been hunted for the rest of thier lives by all elves. No big deal for an elf to snuff a "savage" for killing an elf, no matter the orignal crime. In fact it's the right thing to do.

Quote from: DwightWTF? Have you lost your marbles?

Here comes Dwight to shit on my post. What a fucking surprise.

NOT.

Just because you have some hyper-sensitivity about the particulars of a magic system doesn't make it meaningful in any larger sense. Even in those cases where the magic system is well defined enough in a novel to obey a well known set of laws spelled out by the author (again, far from universal), does that fact that novel A's magic system not match novel B's mean that one or the other fails to be "traditional fantasy"?

NO.

So neither is it meaningful to pick some facet that varies wildly from novel to novel and decide that D&D's particular system somehow is "not traditional".

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHere comes Dwight to shit on my post. What a fucking surprise.

NOT.

Hey, I put in an edit. About the time you were posting this response.  :p

But sure, go ahead ignore the entirely valid points in my post if you like. :rolleyes:  Fantasy is magic is Fantasy.

Quote from: DwightBut sure, go ahead ignore the entirely valid points in my post if you like. :rolleyes:

I was too busy firing of my pissed off quick reply to your characteristically infantile post initially, but I went back and added a refutation for your fluffy-headed supposed "valid points".

QuoteFantasy is magic is Fantasy.

Right... so how does D&D fail to fit "magic" for this theorem?

QuoteRight... so how does D&D fail to fit "magic" for this theorem?

Well if you'd fininshed reading the post. :p  It's got 'magic', it just generally sucks trying to use it for anything other than D&D-world. D&D-world not being particularly "traditional" (please take this up with others). You can paint some lips on it in a few ways. Say you are doing Faustian magic with spirits for your spell slots. But it's still pretty brutal, and not overly flexible. I could very well live with tossing the spells and all (although they are what, a 1/3 of the PHB of the book or more?) and along with it I guess the magic casting classes but plugging something new in is akin to building and putting a new tube and circuit board into your TV. A hell of a lot of work compared to just going and getting a new TV, and mind that fly-back circuit.

In some cases more like putting a new V8 motor in your TV cabinet to give you a new car.

Quote from: DwightWell if you'd fininshed reading the post. :p  It's got 'magic', it just generally sucks trying to use it for anything other than D&D-world. D&D-world not being particularly "traditional" (please take this up with others). You can paint some lips on it in a few ways. Say you are doing Faustian magic with spirits for your spell slots. But it's still pretty brutal, and not overly flexible.

And? Are you saying that the (very broad) body of work that is fantasy fails to include any worlds that fit the default tone on D&D magic? Or are you just "jerrymandering" your definition of traditional fantasy to exclude those worlds?

And then you set out to prove your example with a SPECIFIC example. The argument here isn't "can D&D do Faustian fantasy out of the box". Were that the argument, I wouldn't be arguing.

With a bunch of work (and a lot of experience and skill of the few) you can do Faustian magic in an Egdar Suit. A grotesque paradoy of the 'real deal', and even then only a slice of that.

I agree with Caesar.

The important thing is that D&D has magic-users in it that cast fantastic spells - including the ability to use wands/staves/rods/scrolls.  The exact mechanics of how the magic system works is irrelevant.

D&D uses explicitly-learned spells.  That fits the way a lot of the literature works.  But some use more free-form magic.  Would one system be more "traditional" than the other?

As for how often magic can be used, or what the limits of the effects are, most books tend to treat magic the same way that comics treat super powers - they can do whatever it takes to propel the plot forward in the way the author wants.  Heck, Vance is one of the few who bothered to explain why wizards didn't cast spells constantly - no explanation at all is given for why Gandalf is a sorcerer supreme yet barely casts anything.

Obviously, any game needs to use a factor to limit magic to balance things out.  Does it really matter if the limit is based on spell points, spells per day, or some other method of fatigue/limit?

Once upon a time I came upon a question:  "Why not move away from Plain Vanilla fantasy?"

My answer was, "Because I'm not done doing everything I can with it."

Quote from: jgantsObviously, any game needs to use a factor to limit magic to balance things out.  Does it really matter if the limit is based on spell points, spells per day, or some other method of fatigue/limit?

It certainly does if you actually give a damn about the tone of what setting you are in. Or having "spells" at all in the sense that D&D defines them for that matter.  If you don't give a damn about the tone then of course you don't give a damn about whether or not it follows "traditional" fantasy. Which certainly would make you a poor judge in that matter of whether it follows traditional fantasy or not. ;)


Why did I go "marbles" on Casear? Because he seems to have forgotten what the defining feature of Fantasy is, and usually the distinction between items in the category. Apparently you have as well?

Quote from: DwightIt certainly does if you actually give a damn about the tone of what setting you are in. Or having "spells" at all in the sense that D&D defines them for that matter.  If you don't give a damn about the tone then of course you don't give a damn about whether or not it follows "traditional" fantasy. Which certainly would make you a poor judge in that matter of whether it follows traditional fantasy or not. ;)


Why did I go "marbles" on Casear? Because he seems to have forgotten what the defining feature of Fantasy is, and usually the distinction between items in the category. Apparently you have as well?

The defining feature, as I see it, is that fantasy has people able to cast magic.

How they cast magic and how often they cast magic isn't as important, IMO, as the various literature and other media of traditional fantasy vary widely on this point.  Obviously the tone of magic should be light and fantastical (as opposed to dark, grim voodoo-type magic for example), but I believe D&D easily fits that description.

You, apparently, have a different opinion.  What is it that defines "traditional fantasy" magic in your opinion?  I am interested in what you consider the defining characteristics of traditional magic to be, particularly in what you think is fairly universal across different authors (since I'm not seeing that).

Quote from: jgantsThe defining feature, as I see it, is that fantasy has people able to cast magic.

"Casting" is just a slice.  There are matters of being magic and such.

QuoteHow they cast magic and how often they cast magic isn't as important, IMO, as the various literature and other media of traditional fantasy vary widely on this point.[/u]

B-I-N-G-O!!!  And none of it really even intersects with D&D, which remains quite inflexible.

Quote]Obviously the tone of magic should be light and fantastical (as opposed to dark, grim voodoo-type magic for example)

WTF? Why?

Quote from: DwightB-I-N-G-O!!!   And none of it really even intersects with D&D, which remains quite inflexible.

Bingo indeed. You've just applauded the reason why you are wrong.

The magic in Vance works different from the magic in Zelazy's Amber. Which works different from the magic in the Belgariad. Which works different from the magic in Black Company. Which works different from the magic in Thieves' World. Which works different from the magic in Wheel of Time. But I wouldn't hesitate to call any of those "traditional fantasy". To do so, they must all conform to a more general definition.

A definition which defined fairly at all (i.e., apparently "not as defined by Dwight") would include magic as it exists in D&D.

QuoteWTF? Why?

I'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_subgenres

I feel like a mechanic talking to cavemen about cars.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBingo indeed. You've just applauded the reason why you are wrong.

The magic in Vance works different from the magic in Zelazy's Amber. Which works different from the magic in the Belgariad. Which works different from the magic in Black Company. Which works different from the magic in Thieves' World. Which works different from the magic in Wheel of Time. But I wouldn't hesitate to call any of those "traditional fantasy". To do so, they must all conform to a more general definition.

A definition which defined fairly at all (i.e., apparently "not as defined by Dwight") would include magic as it exists in D&D.

Yep, and notice that he doesn't bother to provide what I asked - his POV of "traditional fantasy" magic.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'm guessing because then it might be more properly termed "dark fantasy" or "horror".

Yep, that's what I meant.  I was trying to differentiate horror-style witchcraft black magic from traditional fantasy-type magic in tone.

Unsurprisingly, the amazing Dwight talks out both sides of his mouth on this one.  First he claims that "tone" is important in establishing traditional fantasy, then apparently wants to argue that the tone can include all the various subgenres that do not have the same tone (a subgenre not having the same tone being sort of the point).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhich works different from the magic in Black Company.

I dare someone to write a system that out of this that's fair, balanced, and not utterly incomprehensible. Really, almost any game mentioned uses magic in such a dramatic capacity - isn't it the ultimate deus ex machina, after all? - that any fair, balanced system is going to be...well, really fucking difficult, I would think. After all, in most dramatic fantasy I can think of, there's a really big gap between "initiate" and "master," which is seldom well-explored.

One nice thing about abandoning tradition is you don't have to shoehorn the ultimate powers of wizardry into something you can do at 1st level and at 20th level and everywhere in-between and not be pissing off the Fighter sitting next to you.

Because whatever twisted an Elf into Orc, forged the Rings of Power, bound ringwraiths to  Sauron's will, and powered the Lidless Eye certainly isn't in any way dark-toned magic.

In closing, and translated for you: Ug. :hitrock: Behold, Fire. :hibachi: Make Wheel go vroom, vroom! :steeringwheel:

Even though I think D&D magic isn't a very good representation of literary or mythical magic prior to the release of D&D, this issue really only touches tangentially on the OP.

It matters in two cases that I can see...One, if you want to emulate a certain "feel" from what you think of as "traditional" fantasy. Two, if you want to introduce newbs to RPGs and you think the D&D magic system isn't intuitive enough to be grasped by people who are at least familiar with "traditional" fantasy tropes.

Frankly I think (2) is a bit silly. D&D magic may feel a bit funny but it's very easy to understand. If anything, when I first learned it 30-some years ago, I thought it was a little strange but I took it for an interesting attempt at systematizing what is, after all, unsystematizable. I.e., it was a model of a theory of magic. It might not have captured the essence of Tolkien or Mallory--but it wasn't so far out there that it felt like not-fantasy. I was intrigued. I only noticed "problems" later--from the unlikelihood that certain spells would ever be memorized (and thus used), to the steep power curve mages had to climb.

And also, yes (1). From literary, anthropological, and occult sources, I started to see how D&D magic didn't match a lot of outside accounts, in terms of how magic gets used and affects the world--and how this was connected to the theory and model of magic in the game.

But if D&D isn't traditional (enough), then either the OP needs to be restated as "why is 'D&D' fantasy desirable", or your response could more usefully address why you prefer your particular vision of "traditional" fantasy--which, note, almost by definition must be based on some canon of non-gaming material, and I would argue pre-D&D material--as opposed to "non-traditional fantasy", which deviates from that canon in some significant way.

Traditional fantasy is the easiest damned thing in gaming to do, especially if you are rushed for time and have to rely on stock tropes by the bushel to fill in the blanks as you go (i.e. your typical adult gamer).

Why does someone need to justify their personal taste? The imaginative/"fluff" part of gaming is all about what personal buttons the mental images push. Whether we like something because we grew up with it, or because it appeals to our id, ego or whatever speculative psychological explanations you can come up with, it doesn't matter. If someone gets a warm fuzzy feeling from playing a Gandalf-like wizard rather than a spiky-haired tiefling, or the reverse, more power to them.

But I think that so many of us have got the warm fuzzies from a certain "traditional" style over the years, that it's more than legitimate to desire a new version of the game to continue to support the same tropes, at least as one of the possible play styles.

Quote from: EngineWhat is "traditional?" Why is "traditional" better, without discussion of any other issues, than nontraditional? Or do you just happen to like it more?

If I used the phrase 'traditional fantasy', I'd use it to mean 'things that non-gamers will recognise'. So knights, dragons, demons, some creatures from Greek mythology, vampires, werewolves etc, but not orcs, drow, creatures from HP Lovecraft etc.

I wouldn't say it was better, but I would guess that it's easier to find people to buy it.

EDIT: this is probably a confusing use of the phrase, because more people seem to use it to mean "like older editions of Dungeons & Dragons".

I threw as much "traditional" or vanilla fantasy into our campaign setting as I could.  Why?  Its an accessible, shared ground, a good baseline for new players, and easy for us all to have at least some exposure to.  I don't want to spend 5 hours everytime my new replacement elf race pops up explaining how it isn't an elf.  I want to use those common points of reference to game, explore, and build new things.

You know what makes D&D magic work for me?  Memorization is obviously ridiculous.  It's unrealistic.  It doesn't simulate or emulate anything, not even Jack Vance's work.  It makes no goddamn sense.

Games with magic systems that make sense and are logical and follow some thread in fantasy literature suck donkey balls.  Every single one of them.  Why?  Because they lack mystery and wonder.  A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable because we are all cavemen compared to "sufficiently".

I think earlier someone mentioned dream logic. Or maybe that was in Balbinus' thread (here or on rpg.net) about how to have players feel like "real" magicians. It's kinda crazy but it sort of makes sense in a symbolic way. Even if you don't yet understand the symbols or the links. It's the puzzle that's there, the sense that it makes sense somehow but it's beyond you exactly how.

There is "that's stupid" doesn't make sense and there is "that's odd" doesn't make sense, the later bring the mysterious and puzzlement about the magic. The difference being subjective. The gonzo aspect of memorization doesn't actually strike me a lot as "that's odd" thought I don't put into the "that's stupid" category either. It's just a push for me. The numerical certainty of the spell slots and pre-selecting them and a lot of the spells to (the statblocks and the specifics are very...well....you know?) doesn't really work for me though.

It's pretty transparently a consession to a game, and I don't even find it that interesting. It is largely, and I'll use the pejoritive term to explain why, "shotgun magic" or "fire and forget" magic.  That's why the magic of D&D Fantasy doesn't do much for me. Others might be able to shake that, or just not really give damn. It's subjective that way. They are fine with the Edgar Suit...hell I can live with the Edgar Suit if I put in my mind that this isn't really a game about Fantasy(magic). The magic is just this cheap backdrop, and don't look at it very closely or you'll spoil the mood. :shrug: But I do like games about magic too, it kinda is the point of Fantays afterall ;), and when I want that I go looking somewhere else. You can dress D&D up a little bit but it gets...messy.