[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/tg/ - Traditional Games

Roll a Fortitude save versus Cancer

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


/tg/ sister boards
[ • /dir//qu//cyoa//erp//monster//his//wh40k//arda/ •]

File: 1457439526115.png (144.69 KB, 277x234, 277:234, elf1.png)

 No.224450

Call me a pleb or something, but I don't see the appeal in high fantasy. It isn't bad per se, you can have a lot of fun with it, but it seems to me like it's the least original and innovative genre out there, yet it gets much more attention than any other genre I know.

Am I mistaken with this, or something? Or do others share this attitude? If there's something I'm missing about high fantasy, I'd like to know.

Again, I have nothing against high fantasy stories. I rather have beef with the genre itself.

 No.224452

>>224450

It's full of inconsistencies and it's the result of dumbing down serious writing ideas to blabbering about power levels. Most high fantasy, in fact, is very dumb.

And so you might think "with heroes finding a 'magic' item every fucking step why are there still peasants in the world when you could, I don't know, produce magic hoes, and peasants would be specialists of magic item handling, and you produce shitloads of grain, but no, someone's gotta be the poor and weak so you guys can jump in and solve shit".

That's an example.


 No.224456

>>224450

Well, before we continue.. Define High Fantasy, as you see it. Just curious what you see as high fantasy and what the problems with it are. No offense, you're just being kind of vague.

>>224452

I assume you're talking about the magic is everywhere/everything is magic kind of high fantasy, in which case I'd say the biggest problem is internal consistency.

Magic is so easy to learn and master that all it takes is holding the right book or uttering the right phrase while holding a certain item. My complaint with those settings and fictional worlds is that they never take it to its logical end.

There should be animated brooms sweeping the streets, golem workers building the castles, guards with paralysis spell wands, knights that have undergone near-lethal exposure to magic to permanently imbued their bodies with superhuman power and durability.

Instead, you get bog-standard pseudo-arthurian mythological europe, but there's dozens of Merlins running around.


 No.224463

>>224456

>Well, before we continue.. Define High Fantasy, as you see it. Just curious what you see as high fantasy and what the problems with it are. No offense, you're just being kind of vague.

None taken. I'm not sure if High Fantasy is really the right term. What I mean are the billions of settings that have the same races (humans/elves/orcs/dorfs), play in a similar setting (medieval western european-ish) and feature magic strongly. They also usually tend to have the same epic feel, with a focus on heroism.


 No.224464

>>224463

Yup. That's high fantasy, and I agree completely.


 No.224471

It's basic overexposure to the same things over and over. People like the stuff they're familiar with, so generic high fantasy is everywhere nowadays. Elves, orcs, hobbits.

Hence, familiarity + mass appeal = proffit with minimum risk. That's why it's almost omnipresent.

Your issue is more with that. If you, say, played a game where the players are insect gods made from nightmares overtaking mystic China, would you have the same issues?


 No.224474

>>224471

>If you, say, played a game where the players are insect gods made from nightmares overtaking mystic China, would you have the same issues?

That would be kind of cool, actually.

I do have some issues with high fantasy, but I think most stem from it being uninspired and formulaic. Lots of people create their own, totally unique fantasy setting by writing two-hundred pages of mythology and lore and deviating from the stereotypical Tolkien-clone in a few insignificant ways, like making elves and wizards an oppressed species (looking at you, Dragon Age). Personally, I don't give much of a shit about the mythology of a setting. It's nice to have one, sure, but it's not nearly as important as people make it out to be.


 No.224475

File: 1457447120550.jpg (9.57 KB, 260x194, 130:97, hes right you know.jpg)

>>224450

>but it seems to me like it's the least original and innovative genre out there, yet it gets much more attention than any other genre I know.


 No.224479

>>224475

Like >>224471 said, it's lowest common denominator type of shit.

It's easily accessible and easily understood because it's so common, so everyone defaults to it as a standard. Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, and Halflings all fill easy narrative niches.

Also, it's worth acknowledging that this is because D&D and LotR are the the central pillars of /tg/ hobbies. Everyone has been trying to iterate on those two things for decades, and we've reached a point where anything that isn't high fantasy comes off as strange and alienating… partly because a lot of people either go too strange, creating entire wonky vocabularies of stupid sounding shit, or they don't go different enough, and you end up with a lot of "like-elves-but" type of shit.


 No.224499

>>224479

>and you end up with a lot of "like-elves-but" type of shit.

So, Talislanta? I liked early Exalted for the fact it mostly only had humans and powered-up humans as a core race but unfortunately it always had all the other problems of high fantasy, only wrapped in a slightly different package.


 No.224502

>>224464

Yeah no question there.


 No.224504

>>224474

Yes, but then you run into the issue of nobody wanting to play your setting because they

a) can't be bothered with learning new lore

b) find the game too strange

People like stuff they're familiar with. They know what an elf is. They don't know - and they don't care to know - about your super special race that's made from swords.

Basically, people are lazy, and they're comfortable with shit they know. That's why generic LotR-inspired high fantasy is everywhere, while stuff like Spelljammer (also high fantasy) is "the weird shit that you heard about, but have no desire to play, ever".


 No.224535

>>224450

Goddanm, even thoug it's 2016, looking at that night Elve's Pubic hair is still as intriguing and refreshing as ever.

Like, every time I see this fuckign image, I instinctively open it up to look at that bush.

I can't be the only one who does this right?


 No.224539

File: 1457462181275.jpg (85.06 KB, 689x693, 689:693, 1456955793346.jpg)

I agree OP, yet I still love to run it because it gives me epic feelz quite a lot.

I prefer grim apocalyptic fantasy, or just post-apocalyptic in general. Preferrably modern or supernatural. I just love people with guns living in walled towns, fighting weird supernatural stuff with old AK-47s. The kind of thing Apocalypse World was supposed to be. It creates an opportunity for a whole new kind of setting that still has a link to earth as we know it. Which is why i think it's so popular. Who knows what Earth will be like in a million years?

One of the best games I ran was a zombie apocalypse in a fantasy setting. It was so much fun to unleash that shit on Pathfinder power gamers.

> lol it's a bunch of zombies, fucking faggot pussies I can rape them singlehandedly

> oh lol one of them hit me for like 1 damage

> wait I got disease? okay whatever, I have +10 to fortitude saves

> a save every hour? what the fuck? Okay, well I still have +10 to fortitude saves so I can easily get the three saves in a row to over come it

> cure disease just slows it down? What?

> how many saves in a row do I need to beat this thing?

> it deals 1d6 con damage per failed save? how am I supposed to beat this thing?

> what do you mean I'm dead? why am I coming back as a zombie?

I swear to god, it changed the dynamic of the campaign completely. Even at 6th level they had to come up with plans to deal with the hordes, because a single hit from a zombie automatically fucked over a character for good. They were doomed. So ranged weapons became very important. I took away the zombie DR and removed their ability to charge, they could only move or attack, not both, and not charge. So the PCs got 1 round to dispatch zombies on them before they got attacked. Characters died a lot, and it didn't matter what level they were because the zombie plague was incurable. I also had fun with special infected, including a pregnant female zombie with babies within babies inside her, each with half hit points of the previous, a la Russian nesting dolls.

God that was a fun campaign. I miss it.


 No.224543

>>224450

A lot of it has to do with just how prolific the genre is in general. Ever since Tolkien, Jack Vance Whose writings were actually the main inspiration for D&D and its gameplay as Gary Gygax was a much bigger fan of Vance's writings over those of Tolkien. Gary only added Halflings and the like because his group wanted to roleplay as characters from LotR, and Gary Gygax entered the mainstream conscience it was pretty much doomed to Sturgeon's Law. Every year there is more books written in the Fantasy and Sci-fi genres than any other, a lot of which is mass produced by ghost writers just trying to make a living. Along with the fact that Fantasy is a relatively easy genre for most writers to break into with little issue. As such it's only inevitable that the majority of it will be crap.

TL;DR: The problem isn't the genre itself just the fact that there's a low bar of entry and far too many people writing in it.


 No.224547

>>224543

Somehow, sci-fi seems more original to me, as a general rule. Maybe because coming up with the technical stuff or being brave enough to outright ignore it is like a slight entry barrier.

Not that there isn't uninspired sci-fi. 90% of all sci-fi vidya is uninspired and bland as fuck. Crysis had the cryo weapons of the aliens and a symbiotic nanosuit (both mostly gimmicks), but aside from that, it was pretty much the current age. The new CoD-games seem to have more of a future flair, but other than that no original ideas. As far as RTS goes, there really is no quality sci-fi to be found.

One thing the sci-fi community seems to have done well is that it understands that Star Wars is not to be copypasted. Same can't be said of Star Trek, but hey, you can't always win.


 No.224560

>>224547

Science fiction still has an actual science fiction genre existing, or more precisely, it has hard science fiction vs soft science fiction. And hard science fiction by its very nature tends to appeal only to a small niche audience, so you have to produce reasonably good content, and you can't pander to the unwashed masses because it has no unwashed masses to pander to.

Fantasy doesn't really have this distinction. I guess you could argue low fantasy vs high fantasy, but the problem is that low fantasy, while perhaps not as popular as high fantasy, is still fundamentally not that different. Hard science fiction diverges vastly from soft science fiction by focusing on actual science and technology, which separates the autistic wheat from the normie chaff. Low fantasy does not diverge in that sense, it's basically high fantasy with less outlandish stuff. But it doesn't have anything about it to specifically appeal to the kind of niche crowd that enjoys hard science fiction (as an example) and alienate the great unwashed masses.

Maybe if you had a fantasy novel/game/whatever that took great pains to produce a believable, functional world and then had the story revolve around dealing with that, and made sure all the rules were established early on, perhaps you could produce a fantasy equivalent to hard science fiction. For example maybe a fantasy novel that dealt with a specific war and the logistics involved in fighting it: getting supplies to soldiers, getting reinforcements around, supply lines vs foraging and how it can affect the war, disease, paying for everything, etc. And that's what the book is all about; sure, there's some enemy they're fighting, but there's no mcguffin or hero to save them, it revolves entirely around them figuring out how to work logistics to their advantage, and the book doesn't just do this as background "technobabble" but rather goes into great detail on how and why everything works the way it does; it is the foreground.

Take an entire genre of that sort of thing and you'd have a fantasy equivalent to hard science fiction.

As an aside, most of the good shit in Crysis 2 and 3 was done by Peter Watts. If you haven't read his stuff before, he's a great science fiction writer. If instead of shooters they'd made Crysis 2 and 3 be RPGs with Watts in charge of the whole thing (so all the background stuff could take prominence), they probably could have made a masterpiece.


 No.224568

>>224539

>The kind of thing Apocalypse World was supposed to be.

Could you expand on this idea a little bit?


 No.224622

>>224547

At the very least, Star Trek knockoffs have a lot more variety than trying to knock off Star Wars. (Which is basically more space fantasy anyway)

I think sci-fi gets more originality at least on the surface because you aren't married to the same aesthetic. Fantasy stuff all looks pretty much the same most of the time, either ripping off Tolkein or history.


 No.224623

File: 1457503823095-0.jpg (24.09 KB, 300x237, 100:79, 300px-FirewardenWylandKasl….jpg)

File: 1457503824555-1.jpg (51.28 KB, 682x411, 682:411, SunreaverMicroSentry2.jpg)

File: 1457503824555-2.jpg (13.22 KB, 221x300, 221:300, 125148.jpg)

>>224456

>There should be animated brooms sweeping the streets, golem workers building the castles, guards with paralysis spell wands, knights that have undergone near-lethal exposure to magic to permanently imbued their bodies with superhuman power and durability.

Literally the Blood Elves.


 No.224627

>>224560

As you said, it again boils down to medieval Europe with elves and dwarves, regardless whether it's high or low fantasy.

The trouble here is that stepping outside of that norm means everyone will be alienated, for some reason or other. Sci fi doesn't really have that problem - you can have Dune and Hyperion, or Star Trek and Starship Troopers, or Rendezvous with Rama, whatever. Sci fi is all over the place, while fantasy - for some reason - has to be boiled down to the same thing over and over.

Imagine, say, if you made a high fantasy setting based on African myth. There are no elves, no dwarves, you can't go innawoods because your angry ancestor's spirit might skin you alive for not paying proper respect, and the prince is the descendant of the first man who was a leopard and built a stair to heaven because he couldn't stand listening to people fucking. And while you might play a game where you're a badass leopard prince who loses his powers once someone takes off his royal robe (made from leopard skin) on a hunt for the Celestial Ladder, how many people do you think would read/play that?

Or, go nuts. Imagine a setting where magic existed since the dawn of time and is truly everywhere. Imagine how that would have an effect on civilization. You probably wouldn't need castles, because you can erect a force field. Everyone carries bottles with captured elementals around, using them for purifying water, raising homes, controlling the weather and all that. Navies would be defunct because everyone attacking would have to deal with sudden tornadoes. Everyone's on the edge, because MAD is assured with insane wizard kings just waiting for the right opportunity to unleash their new Armageddon spells on each other. All buildings are made from threads, imbued with magic, that can move around and even trap invaders.

People would consider it either brilliant (similar to the hard sci fi guys) because it's so fucking well thought, or it would be alienating as fuck (what the fuck is this shit, where are the orcs, and why should I care about the cold war going on between two insane wizard kings?).


 No.224651

>>224627

>As you said, it again boils down to medieval Europe with elves and dwarves, regardless whether it's high or low fantasy.

I said nothing of the sort (the post you're replying to is my first post in the thread; I'm not the person who replied to the OP). I said that it boils down to a problem of fantasy having no subgenre that has great focus on technical sort of things and thereby could the "casuals" if you will, which is how it could have better content.

Now sure, the lack of a hard sci-fi equivalent does result in a large audience that only wants the exceedingly familiar, but, that is a symptom, not a cause. The root of it is the audience you appeal to, and you don't change that audience by having an OC donut steel setting but still having fundamentally the same sort of story.


 No.224653

>>224651

*could alienate the "casuals"


 No.224663

>>224463

The problem is that a genre gets invented by a few geniuses, then run into the ground by crappy imitators.

It's not a problem limited to fantasy, it happens in any kind of stereotyped fiction.


 No.224672

The problem with high-fantasy is the same as the problem with soft sci-fi/space opera:

You can do anything, so what do you do?

It's actually much easier to work within limitations. If someone says "fill this box, but don't use X, Y or Z" to do it then you've got a better idea of where to take an idea. But when someone presents you with a blank canvas and says "Make whatever, and make it well" then you're fucked.

It's much easier to use the shorthand that everyone's familiar with (orcs = evil, elves = mystical, dwarves = surly and industrious) because a story usually isn't about that sort of exploration, that's just flavour for the story that's unfolding, which usually lends itself well to typical Hero's Journey type affairs.

I recommend everybody read Austin Kleon's 'Steal Like An Artist' for why most things are shit.

Spoiler: They stole all their ideas from one or two places rather than stealing from fucking everyone. Consider: Someone had to invent zombies, everything hence is just stealing from that, so what else are you going to steal from others to make zombies compelling?


 No.224683

>>224450

High fantasy is the least original because it is the most varied. I mean, find two elf portrayals that are the same. Yet heaps of them have elves! Same goes for Orcs. At the point that an elf or an orc becomes a basic common understood principal, you have ruined your the mystery and discovery of an adventure that involves elves and orcs.

>>224672

>You can do anything, so what do you do?

That's a great statement, a great point and just one of the issues.


 No.224767

>>224683

Sure, the elf portrayals are never quite the same, but they are always very similar. All elves are in some way more mature and wise.


 No.224810

>>224568

I meant "is" supposed to be. Basically it's a whole new world after the apocalypse, things are being rebuilt, earth has entered a whole new era. People living in dilapidated fortresses guarding them with old guns, there's like no gas left for the most part so vehicles are pretty rare. There's weird psychic cultist shit going on everywhere, and other than that there's a lot of Mad Max type stuff going on.

Read Apocalypse World, it shouldn't be too hard to find a PDF. It's not much of a game, but it's a good RPG if you realize that the "moves" are just shit your character can do, and it's meant to fit into the narrative and what not. Don't listen to AWfags talk about it, they literally turned me off from the game by spouting their pretentious shit. Then I actually read the game and I loved the edgy dark apocalypse setting with a glimmer of hope, and suddenly it felt as open and full of adventure as a D&D world. I desperately want to run Apocalypse World now but the book is 28 bucks so i don't know if / when I will.


 No.224904

>>224479

>partly because a lot of people either go too strange, creating entire wonky vocabularies of stupid sounding shit, or they don't go different enough, and you end up with a lot of "like-elves-but" type of shit.

These aren't necessarily different extremes. These are often the same extreme. People who think being harder to learn is what makes something an original setting, not a side effect of making an interesting setting. The actual extreme of having a legitimately very dense number of new concepts flying around necessarily requires lots of new vocabulary to handle those new concepts (you can lean on portmanteaus for things like 'deepspawn' to help, but that starts sounding really corny if there's a million of them) but coming up with proper names for things is the least of your worries. Your real problem is that filling in your audience to the point where they can properly understand the stakes is an immense undertaking.

Here's an example using history instead of fiction, because we all understand history, so I don't have to rely on your being familiar with an obscure but very, very weird bit of fantasy for the explanation to work. Imagine telling the story of the Cold War to someone from 1945. That's dead easy. The Soviet Union turns out to be dicks, proxy war replaces direct war because of nuclear weapons, and espionage and psy ops become way more important. You can set up the first two points in a single scene/chapter, and the third point is fairly easy to elaborate on such that people get the concept by the time you've reached the climax of a 25,000 word novella and need your audience to understand why it's so important that the microfilm doesn't fall into the hands of the Russians. You can sell a Cold War spy thriller to 1945 as science fiction, and people will get it. Because only a very small number of new things need to be explained.

Now imagine telling the story of the Cold War to a hunter-gatherer from 10,000 BC, for whom cities are unimaginable and permanent habitation of any kind is caveman sci-fi. If you try to toss him into a narrative about a microfilm containing nuclear secrets that will allow the Soviets to disarm the entire NATO arsenal and roll into West Germany with impunity, you are first going to have to explain to him the function of not only nuclear missiles and microfilm, but firearms, automobiles, what these cities everyone's driving around in are, why nobody ever has to go out and hunt dinner, etc. etc. Now, he doesn't need to know the science behind these things. It's fine if the extent of his knowledge of nuclear weapons is "it's a missile that flies through the sky across entire continents and vaporizes entire cities in a single moment." He doesn't need to know about atomic reactions. But he needs to know about missiles, cities, and continents. How are you going to drop all of that into the narrative horrendous info-dumping?

The answer most people will reach for first is to frame it in terms he's already familiar with. To describe the Soviets and the Americans as two very large tribes, the microfilm as a magic artifact which confers knowledge, the various cities as very large (but not necessarily permanent) encampments, and nuclear weapons as some kind of apocalyptic magical ritual. In other words, by drastically reducing the number of unfamiliar elements the hunter-gatherer has to contend with. So as a general rule, if you're making a game or book or whatever set in this bizarre magical world and you don't want to dedicate a decade of your life to taking the long option, your first task is to reduce the bizarreness wherever you can until you can explain everything important about the setting in Act I when you're setting the stakes, with maybe a few details coming out in Act II when you're raising the stakes, and nothing except perhaps interesting but irrelevant details being brought up in Act III when you're resolving the stakes. This means that if you have a people whose primary function is to serve as the antagonists' mooks, make them orcs. It doesn't matter how cool or interesting the dark empire built on the backs of slave armies driven by fungal infestation was, in the end their narrative function is served just as well by orcs and you have a lot more concepts to introduce and not nearly enough time to introduce them in, so just use orcs.

>cont


 No.224905

>>224904

The second, longer route is to tell a longer story and introduce the strange elements over an extremely long period of time. Going back to our hunter-gatherer in the Cold War, if we start him off with an entire story about a platoon cut off from supplies in the jungles of Vietnam who need to make their way back to safety, then you can introduce a relatively small number of new concepts at once. Firearms and grenades. Automobiles and helicopters. You can make vague references to the sheer scale of the conflict, of the tens of thousands of soldiers on either side, without having to actually depict a city and dump all of that on him at once. Then you can give him a story (possibly even a direct sequel) about patrolling farming villages, and introduce ideas like permanent habitation and agriculture and how these enormous populations can be sustained even while immobile. Then you can shift gears to a beat cop in LA who happens across a Soviet spy trying to escape to a boat headed for China, and for whatever reason this cop has to track him down all by his lonesome. This introduces what cities are and how they work: Police departments, municipal governments, traffic, public transportation. Put in an early scene involving him investigating a restaurant for some reason to establish the idea that food comes in from farms via truck, gets prepared by chefs in the restaurant, and then sold to customers. Then with just one more throwaway line, you can talk about how there was some similar complex chain for everything Detective Protagonist had done that morning, for the gas he'd pumped in his car, for the badge he'd slipped in his pocket on his way out the door for work, etc. etc. The dude doesn't need to know every step of that supply chain, he already had one supply chain demonstrated, all he needs to know is that every other wonder of the modern world has some kind of supply chain like that backing it up. Now we can tell the spy thriller we gave to our 1945 audience without prelude, which will fill in the final missing pieces, things like computer, microfilm, and nuclear weapons.

But now you have a series of stories where to understand the fourth you first need to have read the other three. If someone doesn't like one story in the chain and gives up, they won't ever jump back in somewhere else. Plus, the number of people who want to sign themselves up for a series that massive is much smaller than those who'll sign up for one book (which makes no fucking sense because the point of media is to consume until you're bored or something better comes along, then stop, not to reach the end of as many as possible, but it still happens). Plus, if all you really wanted to tell was the spy thriller story, well, you're going to have a way easier time just telling the version of the story that strips away most of the unfamiliar elements so the hunter-gatherer can understand it in one go rather than trying to set up this chain of hidden exposition.


 No.227436

>>224450

> it seems to me like it's the least original and innovative genre out there, yet it gets much more attention than any other genre I know.

You got it backwards. It gets much more attention than any other genre => it's the least original and innovative genre.

The moment it's recognized as a bandwagon, it gets overloaded with trash. Sturgeon's law kicks in.


 No.227448

>>224450

I don't mind high fantasy as "backdrop" for certain other genres - mystery, comedy, horror, slice of life etc, but when paired with the typical "save the world" plotline I lose interest really quickly.


 No.227456

>>224450

The genre can be innovative, but it seems to attract uninnovative writers.


 No.227614

I remember when I was ten I wanted to write a story about an elf fighting along humans against an evil army.

Somehow we have gotten it in our collective minds that that is a genre unto itself, rather than a single setting with some variations. It lowers the barrier immensely because half your story is already written just by choosing the 'genre'.

I think ten-year-old me could have written that story if I had had the discipline to sit down and dedicate myself to something for more than a day or two and it would have fit in perfectly with the sea of uninspired schlock that crowds the young adult fantasy isle in my local bookstore. Okay, maybe it would have been slightly below average.


 No.228550

File: 1458718464966.jpg (133.05 KB, 512x512, 1:1, absolutely beautiful.jpg)

>>224904

>>224905

Quality-post, anon.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]