But which one is "traditional fantasy"? Or is it Burroughs' Barsoom series?Anyone who thinks that Tolkien defines classic fantasy, has a painfully constricted definition of the genre. Michael Moorcock is about as anti-Tolkien as you can get, but he fits as classic fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, also note what I've said about genres earlier.
I wouldn't say "defines", but certainly was a huge influence on - long before the movies. Conan would also fit that broad TVTropes quote - vaguely feudal, there is magic and gods and fights with swords and shields - though he doesn't usually use a shield, anymore than Aragorn does. As would most of Moorcock's Eternal Champions books, certainly Elric.
Part of the divide here may be that we're talking setting more than genre. You can have very different genres with the same basic setting elements. LotR is High Fantasy set in a vaguely Medieval European setting. Conan is Sword and Sorcery set in a vaguely Medieval European setting.
In the context of the original poster - all of them. Though probably not Barsoom, even if it was an influence on D&D.
Since we're talking setting elements, it doesn't really matter whether it's a grand sweeping epic struggle of noble heroes against a Dark Power or petty thieves and mercenaries down in the much.
If you've got magic and kings and nobles and guys on horses with swords and such weapons then you're probably covered. Keep out too much influence from non-European traditions (especially anime) and keep out any modern tech and you're good. You could probably work in some super-science as long as it's lost ancient knowledge and functions as the setting's magic.
You could divide things that fit in that broad category into more subgenres, but the broader one is useful too.
I'm fine if we want to use the term "Medieval European Fantasy", because I can get behind and understand that term. I'm going to point out flaws when people say "traditional fantasy" though. Because usually they're talking about "Medieval European Fantasy" which is only a subset of fantasy and isn't necessarily even "traditional". Other subgenre's are older and have deeper roots.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use the term traditional because that's what other people I talk to use. It's not meant from a literary perspective though bur rather a gaming one: I really mean "as in fantasy RPGs of the 70s and 80s".
I agree it's a poor term, but I don't think it's generally misunderstood, despite being potentially ambiguous, since most people using it (me included) are ignorant of the scope of "fantasy".
And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.
Basically, your point boils down to...
"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"
Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.
And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.
The genre of roleplaying games - tabletop or computer? (That's what I'm speaking about, not novels).
Basically, your point boils down to...
"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"
Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.
My view is:
This is what most people mean by "traditional", therefore we should use the word "traditional" if we wish to be understood by them.
Where did normal come into it? I don't think that's a synonym for traditional.
And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.The genre of roleplaying games - tabletop or computer? (That's what I'm speaking about, not novels).
Basically, your point boils down to...
"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"
Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.
My view is:
This is what most people mean by "traditional", therefore we should use the word "traditional" if we wish to be understood by them.
Where did normal come into it? I don't think that's a synonym for traditional.
So, your definition of "traditional" is anything in D&D before say... 1985?
So, your definition of "traditional" is anything in D&D before say... 1985?And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.The genre of roleplaying games - tabletop or computer? (That's what I'm speaking about, not novels).
Basically, your point boils down to...
"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"
Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.
My view is:
This is what most people mean by "traditional", therefore we should use the word "traditional" if we wish to be understood by them.
Where did normal come into it? I don't think that's a synonym for traditional.
Yeah, pretty much (when talking about "traditional" gaming). I also mean to include the early computer RPGs like wizardry, zork, moria etcetera.
Although, I don't really consider it my definition as I do actually take your point that it's not a terribly good term and that Medieval European Fantasy would be better. I just think "traditional" is well established.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you mean "Medieval European Fantasy", then don't say "traditional fantasy", say "Medieval European Fantasy". This isn't rocket science.
Here, lets run a little experiment.
On Christmas, I like to eat traditional foods. In fact, I have 2 specific foods that are eaten in combination with each other that are traditional where I come from. If the first person to guess gets it right, I'll concede the point that the word "traditional" is super clear.
I think the distinguishing feature of those two examples is that I (or others using the term "traditional fantasy") are not making arbitrary decisions about what the word means. The word has evolved to have an agreed meaning within our subculture, in my opinion. Similarly, your family may well have an idiosyncratic yet accepted meaning of what constitutes traditional christmas food.
If I tell people I don't like lasers or catfolk in my games and prefer more traditional fantasy, they know what I mean. (They generally assume I mean pseudo-tolkienesque-inspired, western european fantasy).
I think it's a term akin to "gritty" rather than "Difficulty Check" (ie not precisely defined, but still usable).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the classic fantasy setting may or may not be dead, but circular arguments about semantics are alive and well.
People.... People never change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until the bomb drops at least...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, not even then....
Sure, they do! Just ask a Ghoul... or Super Mutant... Or that f$!+ed up robot over there using some poor a*&@~+%'s lobotimized brain to wipe out the rest of humanity.
I never said they change for the better...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the bomb drops, we're all gonna go a&@$*%!. Start collecting GUNZ and murderize everyone else. For fun. And maybe food. But mostly fun. And eventually, we'll be all Mad Max.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Techno-pirate cyborgs shooting laser beams. Catfolk/fox people prancing around feudal Japan. These are the kind of things I read about on the forums. So I ask, is the classic European medieval inspired fantasy setting dead?
I may have read this wrong initially.
Back in the day there was Expedition to Barrier Peaks. Long Before Golarion had it's crashed alien space craft, D&D already had them.
I think D&D is what you make of it. That is why there is so much. You can have Medieval Japan if you want and the weapons and magical creatures are there.
However, this not called Dungeons and DRAGONS for nothing. Your Medieval setting will have some magic in it.
However I played some Never Winter Nights games built around the idea of no magic at all. So to each his own. I think I have read on the forums about people playing games with zero magic. It's kind of like GURPS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the setting is dead. Try running around London or Bern or Copenhagen with a sword and shield and you may find yourself having a discussion with local law enforcement. Doubly so if you claim to have class levels in 'thief'. And while they still have royalty, I can't remember the last time Queen Elizabeth II ordered adventurers to voyage to faraway lands in search of treasure.
And aren't foxfolk a traditional fantasy staple? I'm sure they are, as well as samurai, ninja, and oni. Even now the myths of those things pervades modern western culture! (I heard rumours that a company who published D&D material even incorporated them in their own campaign world!)
That said ... my introduction to tabletop RPG? Toon. Mwahahaha ...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what DigitalElf is saying is that in the old days you explored the setting, discovered the fantastical. Your character was relatively mundane, the anchor, your point of view and the really cool stuff was what you found / discovered. Now people want to *be* the cool / strange stuff (stranger than a wizard?) rather than finding it. It's like the game has moved from exploring the world to exploring your character. I still prefer exploring the world myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also never themes from the Holy Roman Empire! So much stuff from Medieval Europe that never gets used!
I've always heard that Paladin was inspired pretty heavily by the companions of Charlemagne.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who thinks that Tolkien defines classic fantasy, has a painfully constricted definition of the genre. Michael Moorcock is about as anti-Tolkien as you can get, but he fits as classic fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, also note what I've said about genres earlier.
beat me to it, in a Nut shell Gary and Gang that came up with DnD took from loads of sources back in the day. Pathfinder Tach AKA skyships Robots and Psionics just carry's on the whole gig, I would look to SpellJammer for some fun Sifi/Fantasy old school mosh-up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also never themes from the Holy Roman Empire! So much stuff from Medieval Europe that never gets used!I've always heard that Paladin was inspired pretty heavily by the companions of Charlemagne.
Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson is pretty much the main source for the D&D paladin (and the paladin's "holy sword," the original Law/Chaos alignment system, nixie, swanmay, and troll).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As mentioned, Appendix N of the 1st Ed AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide should be taken as the definition of what influences inspire a "classic fantasy setting." And those influences span a wider range than "Medieval European Fantasy."
Now Medieval Europe has a large contribution, just because of the underlying influences to Western culture in general, but it is not the only contribution.
|
I think what DigitalElf is saying is that in the old days you explored the setting, discovered the fantastical. Your character was relatively mundane, the anchor, your point of view and the really cool stuff was what you found / discovered.
Yeah, that about sums it up. :-D
It's like the game has moved from exploring the world to exploring your character. I still prefer exploring the world myself.
I concur.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To expand on that....
The Legends of Charlemagne provides the bonded mount and (maybe, if there isn't an earlier source) hippogriff.
The Arthurian stuff provides an example of the paladin's fall from grace.
Randomly I was at an exhibition of Pre-Raphaelite art and this weekend, and I think that's probably responsible for the armour and general styling. A lot of the picture could have been from in the 2nd Ed AD&D PHB. (1st Ed has lousy artwork and Mickey Mouse jokes.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's like the game has moved from exploring the world to exploring your character.Huh. I'd never looked at it from that angle before. That's actually rather enlightening; I wonder which one I prefer?
For me, it's the latter. If I'm supposed to be a part of this world, as my character is, I should know a reasonable amount about it. I live there. Exploring it is important enough but there must be a reason why I am. And I likely want to do a lot more than simply explore it, I likely want to affect it, change it, be a true function of it.
Simply observing strange things loses it's luster eventually. The strange is only strange so often. And while I do enjoy a good architecture, I find people way more interesting to find things out about than buildings usually. And Ideally I'd hope my character would then be also interesting to find out about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet the majority of classics in the genre have nothing to do with Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.
Basically, your point boils down to...
"this is what I'm used to, therefore, we must use the word 'normal'"
Even if it isn't "normal" or "traditional" to someone else.
I'm very curious what "majority of classics" you think don't fit?
Can you give a few examples?Just to see if I'm missing something or if you're using a narrower definition than I am.
Burroughs, Howard, Zelazny, Leiber, Vance, Camp, Lovecraft and Moorcock (most are listed as influences on D&D in the AD&D DMG as well). I'm not saying they're the only important authors, but rather important authors who's work doesn't fit the mold of Arthurian/Tolkien fantasy.
And before someone responds "But those are science fiction", yes, they're fiction, but there really isn't any science in them, and many works are broadly accepted as being within the fantasy genre.