PDA

View Full Version : Hard Fantasy



Max_Killjoy
2017-12-12, 12:38 PM
Looking up something else, I came across a couple of essays by an author I really like, Marie Brennan.

https://www.swantower.com/essays/philosophy/hard-fantasy/
https://www.swantower.com/essays/philosophy/cultural-fantasy-manifesto/


"And then I had an epiphany, boiling it down to five words that work for both sides of the genre: hard fantasy and hard SF alike are concerned with how stuff works, and why.


In science fiction, that can mean physics, computing, biochemistry, etc. A hard SF story is one that takes the known facts of those sciences and extrapolates them, rigorously exploring the mechanisms by which they operate, and how they might be made to operate in new, expanded ways. The equivalent in fantasy, then, is the type of work I’ve often labeled “anthropologically rigorous” — concerned with history, religion, politics, systems of magic, etc. What happens if you set your world conditions like this? Just as in SF, a given novel may devote scads of attention to one topic while ignoring others; finely-tuned interstellar travel matched with nonsensical alien biology is paralleled by, say, Tolkien, who thought through his cosmology and linguistics like whoa but didn’t seem much concerned with where anybody outside of the Shire got their food. It’s hard linguistic fantasy, hard cosmological fantasy, but politics and economics fall by the wayside.


How stuff works, and why. George R. R. Martin treats his politics with all the attention and rigor you could hope for. Jacqueline Carey extrapolates an alternate Europe where Christianity never homogenized Western culture. To a hard SF writer, these may not look like much; human culture and behavior are inescapably fuzzy, and do not lend themselves to replicable laboratory experiments, much less testable thought-experiments. But a hundred years of social science research has produced some pretty good models for understanding how people live, and I think it’s possible to devote in-depth attention to those aspects just as one can with the natural sciences.


The result is hard fantasy. And I don’t know about you, but I am a sucker for authors who write it."





As a self-described worldbuilding addict, this really hits home for me.

And maybe it will help explain why things like the "But dragons!" Fallacy and Kitchen Sink Syndrome are so irksome to some of us -- even though other people love 132-car pileup settings running on "rule of cool", "rule of awesome", and "what not why".

JeenLeen
2017-12-12, 01:55 PM
I love understanding the metaphysics of a fantastical setting. That's just plain and simple intellectual fun for me. I tend to try to port that over to games I play, at least as headcanon. I like my settings, be it book, videogame, or tabletop, to have internally consistent metaphysics. I admit I care less about economics, linguistics, politics, etc., though I like those to at least make enough sense that I can reasonably choose a path for my PC to take based on the knowledge at hand.

In books, I like that about Brandon Sanderson's stuff. It might be soft in some respects, but the magic systems at least are pretty hard (even if the characters in the book don't know all the details so it may appear soft.)

Although I've heard of some hard sci-fi tabletop games, I don't know if I've heard of one that does fantasy that way. Most metaphysics seem to have some internal inconsistencies. I have played a game of oWoD: Mage, where we houseruled a lot of the Spheres to try to make them more internally consistent, but at some points we just had to say that it didn't make sense the setting was that way and for our characters to accept it and not try to reason it out.

Yora
2017-12-12, 02:10 PM
I certainly agree that this is a well established and also very popular current in modern fantasy. Ranging from pseudo-historical stories to works with very unusual worlds that are explored like the technology in sci-fi.

I am under the impression that Ars Magica is aiming at being something like that, though I am not familiar with it.

Though I think the lack of spelled out explanation doesn't have to make it a case of casual worldbuilding for the sake of simple fun. You also have works in which things are deliberately left unclear to put the character in situations where they have to deal with making difficult decisions based on highly incomplete information. That can also be quite difficult to construct and take considerable work.

Airk
2017-12-12, 10:23 PM
Category is too broad to be useful, as you more or less point out in the OP. Something can be "hard" in one area and smooshy as heck in others (honestly, I'd submit Game of Thrones here). I don't think it's a useful descriptor by itself.

Slipperychicken
2017-12-12, 10:40 PM
I came into this thread expecting an exacting definition of fantasy, or a guide on how to excoriate fantasy works for being insufficiently whimsical or fun.

I am disappointed.

2D8HP
2017-12-12, 11:25 PM
Looking up something else, I came across a couple of essays by an author I really like, Marie Brennan....

.......maybe it will help explain why things like the "But dragons!" Fallacy and Kitchen Sink Syndrome are so irksome to some of us -- even though other people love 132-car pileup settings running on "rule of cool", "rule of awesome", and "what not why"..
Oh I read those before! (I really liked her A Natural History of Dragons, though not the sequels as much).

She had a series on Role-playing games called Dice Tales (http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/tag/dice-tales/) which is going to be expanded into a book.

Anyway, on the thread topic, there are so many different "flavors of fantasy" that while I can see what is meant by "Hard Fantasy", by itself the category just doesn't help me find good reading by itself.

As to RPG settings? I'm not sure I can think of any.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-12, 11:53 PM
I came into this thread expecting an exacting definition of fantasy, or a guide on how to excoriate fantasy works for being insufficiently whimsical or fun.

I am disappointed.

So offer something up. It's meant to start a discussion, not beat people over the head with one opening opinion.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 12:10 AM
.
Oh I read those before! (I really liked her A Natural History of Dragons, though not the sequels as much).

She had a series on Role-playing games called Dice Tales (http://bookviewcafe.com/blog/tag/dice-tales/) which is going to be expanded into a book.

Anyway, on the thread topic, there are so many different "flavors of fantasy" that while I can see what is meant by "Hard Fantasy", by itself the category just doesn't help me find good reading by itself.

As to RPG settings? I'm not sure I can think of any.

I was hoping it might spark some discussion -- there's apparently a really deep gap in what people want from a "fantasy" setting, and I thought it might give some insight into one side of that discussion.

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-13, 12:18 AM
Eh.

I never see settings as unrealistic or as hopelessly naive as the ones posted on this forum by people who are concerned about realism.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 12:26 AM
Eh.

I never see settings as unrealistic or as hopelessly naive as the ones posted on this forum by people who are concerned about realism.

Well, um, OK... thank you for your contribution, or something.

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-13, 12:58 AM
So offer something up. It's meant to start a discussion, not beat people over the head with one opening opinion.


I was hoping it might spark some discussion -- there's apparently a really deep gap in what people want from a "fantasy" setting, and I thought it might give some insight into one side of that discussion.


Well, um, OK... thank you for your contribution, or something.

If you want us to discuss some specific aspect of these blog posts, tell us what you want to discuss?

I agree with Airk. I think this idea of "Hard Fantasy" is not very useful.

I don't like what Marie Brennan writes here:



To a hard SF writer, these may not look like much; human culture and behavior are inescapably fuzzy, and do not lend themselves to replicable laboratory experiments, much less testable thought-experiments. But a hundred years of social science research has produced some pretty good models for understanding how people live, and I think it’s possible to devote in-depth attention to those aspects just as one can with the natural sciences.

So based on this, when you see an author's application of social science that you like, you get to tell all the naysayers, "well yeah, human culture and behavior are inescapably fuzzy, especially when you start changing things about the cultures as this author has done." And then when you see someone's application of social science that you don't like, you'll get to say, "naw, you can't make the defense that human culture and behavior are inescapably fuzzy because, look, a hundred years of social science research has produced some pretty good models, man."

I get what she means - that the real world is chaotic enough that a realistic representation of a world with alternate cultures, alternate peoples should also have some chaos - and that's fine. That's balanced. That's a good logic for her to write with. But in its fineness and its balance, it also pretty much says nothing. Basically, factor in social science research up until such a point as you you think you shouldn't. Well, duh.

After all, if you want to hold up Marie Brennan as an example of why some people find a fantasy kitchen sink irksome, you have forgotten to acknowledge that she also wrote this:


Folks, the real world, taken in all its multifarious glory, is weirder and more wonderful than you could possibly imagine. And what that means is that there are (to butcher Kipling) nine and sixty ways of constructing governments, families, religions, genders, meals, music, fashion, houses, and anything else you care to name, and every single one of them is neat.

and this:


Especially in fantasy, where metaphysical propositions can be accepted as literally true, with demonstrable consequences that might seem unrealistic in the real world.

edit: changed some stuff that was poorly worded to be more reflective of my thoughts on this blog.

BWR
2017-12-13, 02:38 AM
I am under the impression that Ars Magica is aiming at being something like that, though I am not familiar with it.


Since AM is set in the Middle Ages in the actual historical world, it does make an attempt to be pretty solidly historically accurate (magic and whatnot aside). I'm not sure that is exactly the same as 'hard' fantasy since it's less about thinking about situations and extrapolating possible/probable/necessary consequences and more just opening a couple of history books.

RazorChain
2017-12-13, 05:00 AM
When I think hard fantasy it's the logical steps what follow adding an element to the world


If there are dragons then what impact does it have. Do they sit on a pile of 13 metric tons of coinage and jewelry and where does that come from? How many of them are there and what do they eat? What does the human population do about them?

If someone kills the dragon and steals the 13 metric tons of treasure, what impact does it have for the economy? Is it worth it to kill a dragon and destroy the economy through inflation?


Kitchen Sink fantasy is where you just throw in things without giving a big F what impact they have upon the world or how they interact with each other.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 07:42 AM
When I think hard fantasy it's the logical steps what follow adding an element to the world


If there are dragons then what impact does it have. Do they sit on a pile of 13 metric tons of coinage and jewelry and where does that come from? How many of them are there and what do they eat? What does the human population do about them?

If someone kills the dragon and steals the 13 metric tons of treasure, what impact does it have for the economy? Is it worth it to kill a dragon and destroy the economy through inflation?


Kitchen Sink fantasy is where you just throw in things without giving a big F what impact they have upon the world or how they interact with each other.


That's a good part of it, yes -- just taking the causes and effects into account.

NRSASD
2017-12-13, 10:00 AM
I really enjoy the concept of "hard fantasy", but honestly it just boils down to two things: internal consistency and solid cause-effect relationships. Things don't need to be explained, or even need to make sense, but so long as one can apply logic to their processes.

For example, Dark Sun. How does defiler magic work? It draws on the "life force" of all living things. What is this life force? No idea, but it doesn't matter. Defilers can draw as much as they want with no consequences, and thus, in the dim prehistory of Athas, cataclysmic magic wars were fought. These battles devastated the land, sure, but it was the Defilers who ensured it could never recover by constantly draining it until there was naught but sand.

This is why I'm such a fan of Babylon 5, and Lord of the Rings, Avatar the Last Airbender, and many others. Their worlds make sense. You can follow one thread of a story or setting, and see how it shakes out. It's not our world, but the logical consequences of the setting are played with.

As an aside, while I really enjoyed A Natural History of Dragons the first time I read it, her subsequent novels and my fiancee ruined it for me, which is a real pity.

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-13, 10:43 AM
Kitchen Sink fantasy is where you just throw in things without giving a big F what impact they have upon the world or how they interact with each other.

Of course, when you attach a negative connotation to the term, you're going to find all of a sudden that settings with heterogeneous elements you don't like are true fantasy kitchen sinks and the settings you do like are just the product of the author's wacky premise being drawn to its logical conclusion, accounting for how weird and wonderful the world is, of course.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 10:44 AM
I really enjoy the concept of "hard fantasy", but honestly it just boils down to two things: internal consistency and solid cause-effect relationships. Things don't need to be explained, or even need to make sense, but so long as one can apply logic to their processes.

For example, Dark Sun. How does defiler magic work? It draws on the "life force" of all living things. What is this life force? No idea, but it doesn't matter. Defilers can draw as much as they want with no consequences, and thus, in the dim prehistory of Athas, cataclysmic magic wars were fought. These battles devastated the land, sure, but it was the Defilers who ensured it could never recover by constantly draining it until there was naught but sand.

This is why I'm such a fan of Babylon 5, and Lord of the Rings, Avatar the Last Airbender, and many others. Their worlds make sense. You can follow one thread of a story or setting, and see how it shakes out. It's not our world, but the logical consequences of the setting are played with.


Well said.

I don't want to be harsh to the other side of this discussion, but I have to say that the oft-posted "Why would you want reality in your fantasy?" response really misses the point. It's not about strict realism, it's about a setting for a story or game giving the sense, the feeling, that it's a place that could be real, that wouldn't start coming apart the moment one stopped holding it together with authorial fiat and total suspension of disbelief.

Yes, it's all fiction, none of it is real. No one is disputing that... yay and point scored for any of the "it doesn't matter" advocates, I guess. But to me there's a fundamental difference between a setting that keeps rubbing that in your face and/or is hollow behind the facades, versus one that takes some effort to hide the seems and put furniture in the back rooms, that gives a sense that when you look away these people might still be living their lives in this other place.

I'm also trying to find a neutral way to ask the following, and struggling because my position on this goes right down to the core for me; tastes vary, and I'm hoping someone might be able to explain in depth why it is that inconsistency and incoherence in a setting just don't bother them the way they bother me.

awa
2017-12-13, 11:49 AM
I'm also trying to find a neutral way to ask the following, and struggling because my position on this goes right down to the core for me; tastes vary, and I'm hoping someone might be able to explain in depth why it is that inconsistency and incoherence in a setting just don't bother them the way they bother me.[/QUOTE]

Well based on a thing about flat worlds that came up previously I would say it has to do with what people care about. Some people may be able to effortlessly ignore an aspect of a world that drives you nuts because they simply don’t care about it and that thing that appeals to them whatever it may be is simply more important to them.

Another thing that may happen is they are trying to emulate something other than the real world such as a mythology or fairy tale and because those logical inconsistencies are part of the source material they get a free pass by the people who really like that source material.

A simple example of this is say vampires they have a real grab bag of abilities with little to no coherent explanation of how or why their powers work, or on a world building side how they keep themselves secret so well, but well their vampires they have those powers because those are the powers that our culture has decided vampires have, they are hidden from the world because, that’s what 90% of the urban fantasy genera is about. people who like urban fantasy can easily hand wave those aspects away because their use to seeing them.

It’s the same way that your typical fantasy reader does not get all up in arms about dragons or giants being too large to function because giants and dragons being big is part of their core aspects. No one reads the lord of the rings and then rants that talking trees are not biologically viable because the stories not about that.
If the story is about let’s say a romance, then for people really into romances the quality of the relationship may outweigh the fact that the hypothetical settings social dynamics don’t make that much sense. Because their simply not that important to the story they want to read. People care about different things and while it is entirely possible that the thing you thought was lazy really was maybe it’s that the effort was spent elsewhere.

pwykersotz
2017-12-13, 12:58 PM
I think that hard VS the assumed soft fantasy in the terms expressed above are really about the amount of time you have to spend on it. From my experience, if I have x time to create a game and world building a hard fantasy setting takes x+y time, then I either make a softer setting that doesn't extrapolate, or I don't make a setting at all. There is also the frustration that comes with trying to make a setting that is more hard than soft, and having your players immediately find gaping holes in it, because even if you test four levels deep of extrapolation, they then have that as a launching pad to play with the fifth level deep. If that happens, there was no point to the harder fantasy, as it didn't net you anything for quite a lot of work.

I love hard fantasy as defined here, provided it doesn't impede the fantasy aspect. As was mentioned above, I really don't want to write entirely new biological laws because I want dragons to exist. What I do want is to know about the world in which they exist. What are the implications of these terrifying creatures? Are they emperors? Monsters? What motivates them? What is known about them?

So overall, I suppose that I straddle the fence. My main goal in all things is the result. It's what my players experience, after all. But the more questions I can answer about the world, the more nuanced and intact it is, the better it withstands the test of time and the more intrigue can be had when interacting with it.

RazorChain
2017-12-13, 05:00 PM
Of course, when you attach a negative connotation to the term, you're going to find all of a sudden that settings with heterogeneous elements you don't like are true fantasy kitchen sinks and the settings you do like are just the product of the author's wacky premise being drawn to its logical conclusion, accounting for how weird and wonderful the world is, of course.

So you are saying that conformation bias will make me conclude that settings I dont like are kitchen sinks regardless if that's true or not?

I'm no fan of kitchen sinks but I've played a lot in them and usually I dont like them because I identify them as kitchen sinks not the other way around

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-13, 07:11 PM
So you are saying that conformation bias will make me conclude that settings I dont like are kitchen sinks regardless if that's true or not?

I'm no fan of kitchen sinks but I've played a lot in them and usually I dont like them because I identify them as kitchen sinks not the other way around

No, I am not saying that confirmation bias will make you identify settings as kitchen sinks regardless of whether or not they are kitchen sinks.

I am saying that the designation, "fantasy kitchen sink" as you use it is not useful in the first place because, according to Brennan, a Hard Fantasy setting should be "weirder and more wonderful than you could possibly even imagine." So when you look at a setting, if it is literally realistic, it should contain phenomena that is so weird and so wonderful, you cannot even think of it. So you are not getting false positives from confirmation bias, you are getting false positives because your human brain is too limited to understand the chaos of the real world.

It's kind of like how you will once in awhile hear that movies based on true stories will tell little believable lies in place of actual events because audiences aren't willing to believe the truth. A recent occurence of this I read about is with the new movie about Tommy Wiseau

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 08:02 PM
Of course, when you attach a negative connotation to the term, you're going to find all of a sudden that settings with heterogeneous elements you don't like are true fantasy kitchen sinks and the settings you do like are just the product of the author's wacky premise being drawn to its logical conclusion, accounting for how weird and wonderful the world is, of course.

No, I am not saying that confirmation bias will make you identify settings as kitchen sinks regardless of whether or not they are kitchen sinks.

I am saying that the designation, "fantasy kitchen sink" as you use it is not useful in the first place because, according to Brennan, a Hard Fantasy setting should be "weirder and more wonderful than you could possibly even imagine." So when you look at a setting, if it is literally realistic, it should contain phenomena that is so weird and so wonderful, you cannot even think of it. So you are not getting false positives from confirmation bias, you are getting false positives because your human brain is too limited to understand the chaos of the real world.

It's kind of like how you will once in awhile hear that movies based on true stories will tell little believable lies in place of actual events because audiences aren't willing to believe the truth. A recent occurence of this I read about is with the new movie about Tommy Wiseau

For those who didn't read the articles, here's what Brennan actually said:

"Folks, the real world, taken in all its multifarious glory, is weirder and more wonderful than you could possibly imagine. And what that means is that there are (to butcher Kipling) nine and sixty ways of constructing governments, families, religions, genders, meals, music, fashion, houses, and anything else you care to name, and every single one of them is neat. "

And yet the part of the quoted post I bolded above, despite even quoting some of those words, somehow manages to say something almost entirely unrelated to what Brennan actually wrote.


AND it manages to sneak in one of the typical ad hom comments of these discussion, the "failure of imagination".

Airk
2017-12-13, 08:04 PM
Well said.

I don't want to be harsh to the other side of this discussion, but I have to say that the oft-posted "Why would you want reality in your fantasy?" response really misses the point. It's not about strict realism, it's about a setting for a story or game giving the sense, the feeling, that it's a place that could be real, that wouldn't start coming apart the moment one stopped holding it together with authorial fiat and total suspension of disbelief.

Again, uhm, hooray? Yes, we've pretty much all concluded that we'd like to suspend our disbelief, and that some things make suspending disbelief harder for some people than for others.


But to me there's a fundamental difference between a setting that keeps rubbing that in your face and/or is hollow behind the facades, versus one that takes some effort to hide the seems and put furniture in the back rooms, that gives a sense that when you look away these people might still be living their lives in this other place.

See, to me, labeling this whole thing with "Hard" and "soft" comes off as trying to find a way to explain why the fiction that allows YOU to suspend your disbelief is "better" than the fiction that doesn't. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But adding the hard and soft labels don't actually help the discussion.



I'm also trying to find a neutral way to ask the following, and struggling because my position on this goes right down to the core for me; tastes vary, and I'm hoping someone might be able to explain in depth why it is that inconsistency and incoherence in a setting just don't bother them the way they bother me.

Because some parts of settings just don't matter to some people, and they matter to you. Usually, but not always, the parts that will bug people are the "people" parts - if someone acts in what seems like an irrational way for who they are supposed to be, that's jarring, and obvious, and right there in your face, whereas if some part of the cosmology of the world, which a lot of people don't even bother to keep in their head, is inconsistent with some other part, many people just won't care, because the cosmology isn't important to them. There's no magic formula for what is important to one person vs what is important to someone else. No one is ever going to be able to "explain" to you why they don't think something is important. It's basically like asking "Why are you interested/not interested in thing X?" and most people's answer will be "Because thing X is interesting and has enough depth for me to explore." or "I don't know enough about it to care" - neither of which does anything to differentiate those things from hundreds of other things. Why did Tolkien fixate on imaginary languages? Because he liked languages, so the languages in his work are super rigorous. Does it bother you if the imaginary language of a world is linguistically bull****? Can you explain why or why not?

RazorChain
2017-12-13, 08:40 PM
No, I am not saying that confirmation bias will make you identify settings as kitchen sinks regardless of whether or not they are kitchen sinks.

I am saying that the designation, "fantasy kitchen sink" as you use it is not useful in the first place because, according to Brennan, a Hard Fantasy setting should be "weirder and more wonderful than you could possibly even imagine." So when you look at a setting, if it is literally realistic, it should contain phenomena that is so weird and so wonderful, you cannot even think of it. So you are not getting false positives from confirmation bias, you are getting false positives because your human brain is too limited to understand the chaos of the real world.


Oh thanks now I get it. Our brains are too limited to make sense of the world.

I'll stop trying to understand how the world works then I guess

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-13, 09:22 PM
Oh thanks now I get it. Our brains are too limited to make sense of the world.

I'll stop trying to understand how the world works then I guess

There is an insane amount of distance from that point A to that point B.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-13, 09:45 PM
See, to me, labeling this whole thing with "Hard" and "soft" comes off as trying to find a way to explain why the fiction that allows YOU to suspend your disbelief is "better" than the fiction that doesn't. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But adding the hard and soft labels don't actually help the discussion.


I didn't say "soft", did I?

RifleAvenger
2017-12-14, 12:04 AM
I'll take a crack. You probably won't think the answer is terribly worth considering. More of a me issue really.

Time and effort. It takes a LOT of effort to truly follow something through to a logical and well researched conclusion. And in a role-playing game suddenly you need to be widely researched too to deal in politics, economics, sociology, geography, potentially linguistics, etc. Then you need to make sure any extraordinary features either fit in the world or changing the world to fit them without busting everything else. It's a time sink that I find frustrating as I add details and suddenly realize five others have to change to make it fit.

The three areas I am educated enough in to be confident in my ability to write something realistically are geology, ecology, and evolutionary history (I'm a paleontologist). Besides geology for setting up the basic geography, one of those things is usually outside of the scope of most games (evolution) and the other is nothing but painful to deal with when you really tinker with it under the microscope (ecology). To the point where, because it being done poorly does bug me, I wound up making most of my games urban fantasy with human on human action or dreamscape settings/monsters where ecology is almost literally a non-factor.

Then I stare at the meat of an RPG, communities and individuals, with no background in social science besides 100-200 level elective in undergrad or high school years ago. And how magic would change all that realistically. Or trying to invent a new physics system to deal with magic in a way that wouldn't require so much change. Basically having to create a new setting and metaphysics from the ground up constantly as things change or further supernatural abilities are added. It's work that I don't enjoy (I have a hard enough time justifying doing the needed prep work on shallower setting as it is), and with all the work I already do I don't want my entertainment to consist of even more work. Oh, and then I actually need to strain my weak creative writing skills to make the characters and plot interesting on top of all that.

To draw an analogy to my actual job, paleontologists (all scientists really) do not always use the most cutting edge tools or strenuous methods, collect data on every last specimen of a taxon, or do all the additional checks for things like taphonomy, time-averaging, or preparation background (this one almost NEVER). Ideally, we should. But grant money and time is highly limited so we make choices and get on with the research best we can. Super matrices for phylogenetic studies are excellent and we now have the computing power to make them feasible; we still don't see them used on many studies because it's an enormous time investment to put the matrix together that alternative methods don't require (some people even today are hanging on to super-trees for dear life, despite them being TERRIBLE, because they make running analysis so much faster). It's the same for me when preparing game; I do what I feel is the minimum to prevent the facade from actively denigrating the game at a superficial level, but not enough to withstand sustained prodding because I don't have time and it's not fun to stress over it. That means I can't have people with tastes like yours as players, but I think we're both fine with that.


I mean no offense, and this is likely off the mark. But in the time that I've lurked here, Max, it seems like the games you aspire to would need to be written by a panel of social scientists with a few phys. science PhD's thrown in for good measure. Oh, and an actual creative writing author too since a lot of scientists are terrible writers. No single author has the expertise it takes to truly create a realistic fictional world that doesn't fray at the seams somewhere. It's already been brought up that some "Hard" works are only so in specific aspects. I certainly don't have time for it when I have grants and papers to write, tests to grade, field and collections work to attend to, and still want to prepare and run tabletop games on the side.

Oh, and I think "hard" aspects are easier to hit in novels and linear stories that neither have to support play mechanics nor players tugging at the threads of the fictional reality.

So yeah, tl'dr "Ain't nobody got time for that. Or at least not me."

NRSASD
2017-12-14, 12:31 AM
@RifleAvenger Hello fellow scientist who digs up dead stuff!
I think you hit the problem square on. Yeah, time and effort are such finite resources, especially for a game. This is why I tremendously appreciate the efforts of any DM who even tries to address the internal consistency angle, and don't get too worked up about it if they don't. I'm not so much concerned with the final product so much as the attempt. In my own games, I run low magic settings because I know that the road leading to magic also leads to OCD insanity about the internal consistency, at least for me.

Two related factors behind some people's lack of concern with internal consistency are the theme of the campaign and the characters involved. If the game is lighthearted, in a monster of the week format, or not taking itself seriously, many people will cheerfully overlook the nitty gritty details and just accept whatever the DM puts in front of them. Othertimes, the characters are so interesting that the plot and world bends to accommodate them, which is likewise totally fine. It's just a game after all. Sure, I appreciate my actions have consequences down the road, but not in all of my games.

RazorChain
2017-12-14, 01:28 AM
There is an insane amount of distance from that point A to that point B.

Maybe I decided to go with a syllogism fallacy because your argument was nonsense?

Lorsa
2017-12-14, 04:52 AM
I am usually always concerned with how things work and why and with the fictional work being internally consistent and taking the included elements to its logical conclusion. At the very least for any work that tries to uphold itself to some level of "seriousness". That is, I don't actually care so much about how things work and why when I read Discworld or watch Dr. Who, but I will with ASoIaF or Star Trek (which is actually portrayed as serious).

In any case, it is a bit problematic when moving the term "hard" from sci-fi to Fantasy. In science fiction, it corresponds to how much real world physics that has a place in the work, whereas for Fantasy, we often specifically do NOT want real world physics. So instead perhaps it would be better with a new term to reflect that we are rather talking about internal consistency, logical cause-effect and the like. Perhaps something like "strict" vs. "free" Fantasy or "causal" vs. ... something.

In any case, I am waiting for an upswing of Hard Romance. That would be something!

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 09:40 AM
I am usually always concerned with how things work and why and with the fictional work being internally consistent and taking the included elements to its logical conclusion. At the very least for any work that tries to uphold itself to some level of "seriousness". That is, I don't actually care so much about how things work and why when I read Discworld or watch Dr. Who, but I will with ASoIaF or Star Trek (which is actually portrayed as serious).

In any case, it is a bit problematic when moving the term "hard" from sci-fi to Fantasy. In science fiction, it corresponds to how much real world physics that has a place in the work, whereas for Fantasy, we often specifically do NOT want real world physics. So instead perhaps it would be better with a new term to reflect that we are rather talking about internal consistency, logical cause-effect and the like. Perhaps something like "strict" vs. "free" Fantasy or "causal" vs. ... something.


For hard science fiction, it's not just physics. Or, from the essay:


"In science fiction, that can mean physics, computing, biochemistry, etc. A hard SF story is one that takes the known facts of those sciences and extrapolates them, rigorously exploring the mechanisms by which they operate, and how they might be made to operate in new, expanded ways."

Vitruviansquid
2017-12-14, 10:10 AM
Maybe I decided to go with a syllogism fallacy because your argument was nonsense?

Perfect example of the chaos of the world:

1. Decide the argument that the world is too chaotic to be well understood is nonsense.

2. Rather than explain why this argument is wrong, which he should be able to do if he understands the world so well, posts something that is admittedly nonsense in order to...???

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 10:14 AM
Perfect example of the chaos of the world:

1. Decide the argument that the world is too chaotic to be well understood is nonsense.

2. Rather than explain why this argument is wrong, which he should be able to do if he understands the world so well, posts something that is admittedly nonsense in order to...???

Or rather, he gave your assertion exactly the level of response it deserved.

If you really want to discuss the blinkered notion that the world is so chaotic that no understanding is possible, I'm sure there are plenty of places to discuss that where it's not a complete and obvious attempt at a total off-topic derail.

Lorsa
2017-12-14, 10:25 AM
For hard science fiction, it's not just physics. Or, from the essay:


"In science fiction, that can mean physics, computing, biochemistry, etc. A hard SF story is one that takes the known facts of those sciences and extrapolates them, rigorously exploring the mechanisms by which they operate, and how they might be made to operate in new, expanded ways."

Yes, it's true that it's not just physics. I just happen to easily slip into using it as an umbrella term for understanding nature and the physical reality.

In any case, Fantasy specifically do not want to follow natural sciences. You can change how biochemistry work, the laws of physics, chemical reactions and whatnot. This is why I think the term can easily become a little weird when as it has to be used differently in the two contexts. In Sci-fi, it means how much you stick to Science, whereas for Fantasy, it means how much you stick to your own, made-up science (as far as I understood it?). While I am certainly on board with internal consistency and taking things to their logical conclusion, I merely wish to avoid any future misunderstandings.

Airk
2017-12-14, 10:29 AM
I didn't say "soft", did I?

Okay. Hard and "not hard". Whatever. If you are going to argue that there is a state that things can sometimes have, you necessarily imply the existence of the state those things have when they DON'T have the thing you define. It doesn't matter what you call it. Can you drop the needless semantics and talk about the actual problems with this?

Thinker
2017-12-14, 11:26 AM
I play a lot of pen and paper games that lack a lot of depth. I don't worry all that much about hard and fast rules or figuring out the how and why of most things. I do the minimum amount of extrapolation possible. I care about just a few things in this order:
Is it fun? If everyone is having fun, there's no need to change anything and any future changes should be in line with what I perceive is making things fun.
Does the scenario make sense to this point? I don't want to have to rely on fiat or hand-waving for the scenario to make sense.
Does everything follow an internal consistency? I maintain a strict sense of internal consistency - I play with rules that allow characters to create things or alter scenes, but those things cannot contradict what has already been established by me or another player or the rules of the setting.


I do enjoy reading about the how's and why's of different settings. I even enjoy coming up with those sorts of things for my own worlds, but I find that the time that it takes is not worth while in many cases. The how and why is only for myself in those cases since the players rarely care and it won't come up most of the time. It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game to do exposition on where the water goes after it falls off the edge of the world (and might make people fall asleep if done poorly!).

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 11:40 AM
Yes, it's true that it's not just physics. I just happen to easily slip into using it as an umbrella term for understanding nature and the physical reality.

In any case, Fantasy specifically do not want to follow natural sciences. You can change how biochemistry work, the laws of physics, chemical reactions and whatnot. This is why I think the term can easily become a little weird when as it has to be used differently in the two contexts. In Sci-fi, it means how much you stick to Science, whereas for Fantasy, it means how much you stick to your own, made-up science (as far as I understood it?). While I am certainly on board with internal consistency and taking things to their logical conclusion, I merely wish to avoid any future misunderstandings.

At the core, as far as I can tell, it is about internal coherence and consistence, and following things to their conclusion -- that the worldbuilding is rigorous, especially in those areas that the work is going to concentrate on. It doesn't have to be accurate to real-world physical science, especially as it applies to things that need to change to support the premise... even "hard SF" has the concept of "conceits" in order to allow the premise and/or story to be possible in the first place.

kyoryu
2017-12-14, 12:25 PM
I get what you're going for.

For me, the difference is that hard sci-fi attempts to operate within the known constraints of physics.

"Hard fantasy" is similar, but the difference is that we allow for suspension of disbelief in a few significant areas, but then expect everything outside of that to logically follow.

That's why "but dragons!" doesn't work for some people. The existence of one fantastical element does not, to people that enjoy this, suggest that everything else is up for suspension of disbelief - in fact, the suspension of disbelief granted to dragons relies upon everything else acting in a consistent and believable way.

Segev
2017-12-14, 12:50 PM
I know I've mentioned him before, as I am a fan of his works, but Brandon Sanderson (and his eponymous "laws") seem relevant, here. For discussion, I'm just going to copy in the laws:

1) An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
2) The limitations of a magic system are more interesting than its capabilities. What the magic can't do is more interesting than what it can.
3) Expand on what you have already, before you add something new.

Now, of these, only the first and third are closely related to making it "hard fantasy" as described in the OP, but I think the set taken together leads to hard fantasy settings.

Magic need not have all things explained, but it needs to have laws the same way our real-world physics does, and those laws need to be understandable at least on the level of Newtonian physics. When this happens, you can have hard fantasy magic. Things grow from those rules, rather than being invented anew.



As a side note, I think this ironically makes it possible to argue that Piers Anthony's Xanth novels are hard fantasy. There are definite (albeit pun-based) rules to how it works. And a great deal of the development in any story - even the bad ones - is based on examining the consequences of the rules as established.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 12:56 PM
I'll take a crack. You probably won't think the answer is terribly worth considering. More of a me issue really.

Time and effort. It takes a LOT of effort to truly follow something through to a logical and well researched conclusion. And in a role-playing game suddenly you need to be widely researched too to deal in politics, economics, sociology, geography, potentially linguistics, etc. Then you need to make sure any extraordinary features either fit in the world or changing the world to fit them without busting everything else. It's a time sink that I find frustrating as I add details and suddenly realize five others have to change to make it fit.

The three areas I am educated enough in to be confident in my ability to write something realistically are geology, ecology, and evolutionary history (I'm a paleontologist). Besides geology for setting up the basic geography, one of those things is usually outside of the scope of most games (evolution) and the other is nothing but painful to deal with when you really tinker with it under the microscope (ecology). To the point where, because it being done poorly does bug me, I wound up making most of my games urban fantasy with human on human action or dreamscape settings/monsters where ecology is almost literally a non-factor.

Then I stare at the meat of an RPG, communities and individuals, with no background in social science besides 100-200 level elective in undergrad or high school years ago. And how magic would change all that realistically. Or trying to invent a new physics system to deal with magic in a way that wouldn't require so much change. Basically having to create a new setting and metaphysics from the ground up constantly as things change or further supernatural abilities are added. It's work that I don't enjoy (I have a hard enough time justifying doing the needed prep work on shallower setting as it is), and with all the work I already do I don't want my entertainment to consist of even more work. Oh, and then I actually need to strain my weak creative writing skills to make the characters and plot interesting on top of all that.

To draw an analogy to my actual job, paleontologists (all scientists really) do not always use the most cutting edge tools or strenuous methods, collect data on every last specimen of a taxon, or do all the additional checks for things like taphonomy, time-averaging, or preparation background (this one almost NEVER). Ideally, we should. But grant money and time is highly limited so we make choices and get on with the research best we can. Super matrices for phylogenetic studies are excellent and we now have the computing power to make them feasible; we still don't see them used on many studies because it's an enormous time investment to put the matrix together that alternative methods don't require (some people even today are hanging on to super-trees for dear life, despite them being TERRIBLE, because they make running analysis so much faster). It's the same for me when preparing game; I do what I feel is the minimum to prevent the facade from actively denigrating the game at a superficial level, but not enough to withstand sustained prodding because I don't have time and it's not fun to stress over it. That means I can't have people with tastes like yours as players, but I think we're both fine with that.


I mean no offense, and this is likely off the mark. But in the time that I've lurked here, Max, it seems like the games you aspire to would need to be written by a panel of social scientists with a few phys. science PhD's thrown in for good measure. Oh, and an actual creative writing author too since a lot of scientists are terrible writers. No single author has the expertise it takes to truly create a realistic fictional world that doesn't fray at the seams somewhere. It's already been brought up that some "Hard" works are only so in specific aspects. I certainly don't have time for it when I have grants and papers to write, tests to grade, field and collections work to attend to, and still want to prepare and run tabletop games on the side.

Oh, and I think "hard" aspects are easier to hit in novels and linear stories that neither have to support play mechanics nor players tugging at the threads of the fictional reality.

So yeah, tl'dr "Ain't nobody got time for that. Or at least not me."


@RifleAvenger Hello fellow scientist who digs up dead stuff!
I think you hit the problem square on. Yeah, time and effort are such finite resources, especially for a game. This is why I tremendously appreciate the efforts of any DM who even tries to address the internal consistency angle, and don't get too worked up about it if they don't. I'm not so much concerned with the final product so much as the attempt. In my own games, I run low magic settings because I know that the road leading to magic also leads to OCD insanity about the internal consistency, at least for me.

Two related factors behind some people's lack of concern with internal consistency are the theme of the campaign and the characters involved. If the game is lighthearted, in a monster of the week format, or not taking itself seriously, many people will cheerfully overlook the nitty gritty details and just accept whatever the DM puts in front of them. Othertimes, the characters are so interesting that the plot and world bends to accommodate them, which is likewise totally fine. It's just a game after all. Sure, I appreciate my actions have consequences down the road, but not in all of my games.


The time issue is completely valid -- I'm running into it like brick wall on the setting I've been working on, especially as I've come to understand the real scope of what I'm trying to do.

War_lord
2017-12-14, 02:14 PM
The problem with that is that, as I understand it from an outsider perspective, "hard" sci-fi is focused on scientific accuracy. If you tried to write a hard sci-fi novel with lightsabers, it wouldn't be hard sci-fi and the hard sci-fi crowd would pan it for having impossible and impractical laser swords.

Fantasy is inherently soft, dragons are expected, magic is expected. The world those dragons and that magic can be gritty and down to earth, it can be a silly kitchen sink or anything in between, but it's fundamentally not a "hard" genre. Fantasy has a much higher suspension of disbelief requirement by default.


IThat's why "but dragons!" doesn't work for some people. The existence of one fantastical element does not, to people that enjoy this, suggest that everything else is up for suspension of disbelief - in fact, the suspension of disbelief granted to dragons relies upon everything else acting in a consistent and believable way.

The existence of giant fire breathing flying reptiles, sometimes giant fire breathing flying reptiles with genius level intellect, isn't just a single suspension of disbelief. It would totally destroy our understanding of physics and biology. A work of hard sci-fi might take place 500 years in the future, but it works on the fact that physics is still physics.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-14, 02:20 PM
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the term "hard fantasy" because of obvious connotations with "hard sci-fi".

It sounds like the article is just talking about in-depth and internally consistent fantasy.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 02:37 PM
The problem with that is that, as I understand it from an outsider perspective, "hard" sci-fi is focused on scientific accuracy. If you tried to write a hard sci-fi novel with lightsabers, it wouldn't be hard sci-fi and the hard sci-fi crowd would pan it for having impossible and impractical laser swords.

Fantasy is inherently soft, dragons are expected, magic is expected. The world those dragons and that magic can be gritty and down to earth, it can be a silly kitchen sink or anything in between, but it's fundamentally not a "hard" genre. Fantasy has a much higher suspension of disbelief requirement by default.



The existence of giant fire breathing flying reptiles, sometimes giant fire breathing flying reptiles with genius level intellect, isn't just a single suspension of disbelief. It would totally destroy our understanding of physics and biology. A work of hard sci-fi might take place 500 years in the future, but it works on the fact that physics is still physics.


I'm not sure I'm a fan of the term "hard fantasy" because of obvious connotations with "hard sci-fi".

It sounds like the article is just talking about in-depth and internally consistent fantasy.


The author of the articles also suggests the terms "cultural fantasy" or "anthropologically rigorous". There's nothing inherently necessary about the term "hard fantasy".

Cazero
2017-12-14, 02:38 PM
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the term "hard fantasy" because of obvious connotations with "hard sci-fi".

It sounds like the article is just talking about in-depth and internally consistent fantasy.
...Yeah, that's what "hard" fantasy is. In-depth and internally consistent. Like with hard sci-fi.

Wich is a pretty logical choice of words considering there is almost no meaningful difference between sci-fi and fantasy. The main one is wether you use magic or sufficiently advanced technology.
Or as the late sir Pratchett put it : science fiction is fantasy with bolts on.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-14, 02:39 PM
Or as the late sir Pratchett put it : science fiction is fantasy with bolts on.

He can say that - but I disagree with him.

That's only at all true of "future fantasy" style sci-fi like Star Wars.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 02:40 PM
...Yeah, that's what "hard" fantasy is. In-depth and internally consistent. Like with hard sci-fi.

Wich is a pretty logical choice of words considering there is almost no meaningful difference between sci-fi and fantasy. The main one is wether you use magic or sufficiently advanced technology.

Or as the late sir Pratchett put it : science fiction is fantasy with bolts on.



He can say that - but I disagree with him.

That's only at all true of "future fantasy" style sci-fi like Star Wars.


IIRC Vonnegut said "Technology is magic that works."

But while true as a backhanded way of explaining why magic "feels magical" in the real world (that is, it doesn't work), I don't think it's true in the context of this discussion.

Star Wars is straight-up "future fantasy" or "science space fantasy", and not really science fiction unless one defines science fiction purely by superficial trappings.

War_lord
2017-12-14, 02:58 PM
...Yeah, that's what "hard" fantasy is. In-depth and internally consistent. Like with hard sci-fi.

Hard Sci-fi follows the laws of physics, fantasy takes a crap on the laws of physics.


Wich is a pretty logical choice of words considering there is almost no meaningful difference between sci-fi and fantasy. The main one is wether you use magic or sufficiently advanced technology.
Or as the late sir Pratchett put it : science fiction is fantasy with bolts on.

Pratchett should have stayed in his lane. That take is so utterly incorrect that it's not even wrong. Calling it wrong would imply that it's in the same ballpark as a correct answer. Star Wars and Star Trek are science fantasy, they do use technobabble as a cover for magic. Neither of them are actually sci-fi, never mind hard sci-fi.


The author of the articles also suggests the terms "cultural fantasy" or "anthropologically rigorous". There's nothing inherently necessary about the term "hard fantasy".

"Anthropologically rigorious fantasy" doesn't make for catchy marketing, but it's probably the best term. Cultural fantasy makes me think of something like Earthbound, which is a fantasy story that uses Americana instead of Medievalism as a base.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 03:19 PM
Hard Sci-fi follows the laws of physics, fantasy takes a crap on the laws of physics.


I'd say that hard science fiction attempts to extrapolate from, and not carelessly violate, the known science on the subjects it touches on.

kyoryu
2017-12-14, 03:24 PM
The existence of giant fire breathing flying reptiles, sometimes giant fire breathing flying reptiles with genius level intellect, isn't just a single suspension of disbelief. It would totally destroy our understanding of physics and biology. A work of hard sci-fi might take place 500 years in the future, but it works on the fact that physics is still physics.

Uh, yeah, that's why I pointed out that hard sci-fi works within the boundaries of our understanding of physics/etc., while fantasy, of any stripe, doesn't.

"Hard" fantasy, then, takes the impossible elements (be they dragons, magic, whatever), and attempts to extrapolate a believable world provided you accept the unbelievable elements. GoT has dragons, which are unbelievable, but it at least makes an attempt to consider the implications (being used as WMDs, their feeding, etc.).

So, yeah, dragons require suspension of disbelief. If you can't get your head around that, great!

But there's a number of people that can accept dragons, but still want the rest of the world to make sense given the presence of dragons. I think this is an understandable stance, and it's at least worth understanding that some people have it even if it's not something you, in particular, care about.

War_lord
2017-12-14, 03:24 PM
I'd say that hard science fiction attempts to extrapolate from, and not carelessly violate, the known science on the subjects it touches on.

That's probably a better definition, yes.

Cazero
2017-12-14, 03:29 PM
Star Wars and Star Trek are science fantasy, they do use technobabble as a cover for magic.
I was more thinking about the Dune books and the Ender trilogy, sold as sci-fi as far as I know, but I guess they're actualy science fantasy. Either book publishers and authors lie on what their books are about, or there are two wildly different definition of what the sci-fi genre is.

Mostly irrelevant to the point, but I feel like science fantasy is a poor classification. Science is pretty much meaningless here. Why not use a qualifier more helpful, like medieval/contemporary/dystopian/futuristic/space fantasy?

War_lord
2017-12-14, 03:39 PM
"Hard" fantasy, then, takes the impossible elements (be they dragons, magic, whatever), and attempts to extrapolate a believable world provided you accept the unbelievable elements. GoT has dragons, which are unbelievable, but it at least makes an attempt to consider the implications (being used as WMDs, their feeding, etc.).

No, you fundamentally don't understand what it means to be "hard" sci-fi. Dragons, obsidian candles that grant foresight and telepathy when lit, changing the weather through blood magic, Necromancy, a massive man made wall of ice that's 300 miles long and 700 feet tall. None of these are single suspensions of disbelief, there's a huge number of implications that should exist but need to be handwaved to make any fantasy story work.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-14, 04:13 PM
I was more thinking about the Dune books and the Ender trilogy, sold as sci-fi as far as I know, but I guess they're actualy science fantasy.

Actually - both of those are reasonably hard sci-fi. I've even heard Dune used as an example of hard sci-fi when explained as the opposite end of the spectrum from Star Wars (likely to contrast the sci-fi melee excuses).

Dune's only fantasy element is the spice - everything else has a LOT of explanation. Melee is important because of shield belts mostly cancelling all ranged weapons - and it was one of the first settings I know of that did the whole premise of lost technology explaining the gaps in tech. (for a more modern setting - 40k took the idea and ran with it)

Ender doesn't explain what all the tech is (since none of the main characters know) but it actually worries about stuff like relative time due to near-light speeds etc.

S@tanicoaldo
2017-12-14, 04:23 PM
A better name for this would be "Plausible fantasy".

Aliquid
2017-12-14, 04:23 PM
No, you fundamentally don't understand what it means to be "hard" sci-fi. Dragons, obsidian candles that grant foresight and telepathy when lit, changing the weather through blood magic, Necromancy, a massive man made wall of ice that's 300 miles long and 700 feet tall. None of these are single suspensions of disbelief, there's a huge number of implications that should exist but need to be handwaved to make any fantasy story work.I've never had to use "suspension of disbelief" when reading "hard" fantasy. I don't have do suspend anything to believe the fantasy.

The key point for me is that a fantasy world is not our world, and as such the rules of our world don't have to apply. It is a hypothetical, theoretical fantasy world. If there are dragons in that world, that is a simple fact that is "true" of that world. So with that in mind, the "laws of physics" (or chemistry or whatever) are completely irrelevant to me when I read fantasy. What is relevant is that this fantasy world does have laws, and that those laws are consistent. For me, a proper "hard" fantasy as suggested in this post would have clean, clear and consistent laws.

I have always felt this way, and I was quite happy to read a quote from Tolkien with a similar view:
"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying ... to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed."

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 04:57 PM
I've never had to use "suspension of disbelief" when reading "hard" fantasy. I don't have do suspend anything to believe the fantasy.

The key point for me is that a fantasy world is not our world, and as such the rules of our world don't have to apply. It is a hypothetical, theoretical fantasy world. If there are dragons in that world, that is a simple fact that is "true" of that world. So with that in mind, the "laws of physics" (or chemistry or whatever) are completely irrelevant to me when I read fantasy. What is relevant is that this fantasy world does have laws, and that those laws are consistent. For me, a proper "hard" fantasy as suggested in this post would have clean, clear and consistent laws.

I have always felt this way, and I was quite happy to read a quote from Tolkien with a similar view:
"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying ... to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed."

Sounds like Tolkien was big on immersion.

kyoryu
2017-12-14, 04:59 PM
No, you fundamentally don't understand what it means to be "hard" sci-fi. Dragons, obsidian candles that grant foresight and telepathy when lit, changing the weather through blood magic, Necromancy, a massive man made wall of ice that's 300 miles long and 700 feet tall. None of these are single suspensions of disbelief, there's a huge number of implications that should exist but need to be handwaved to make any fantasy story work.

No, I really do.

That's why I drew a distinction between hard sci-fi (follows the laws of physics, perhaps extrapolates current scientific knowledge, does not break the laws of physics) and hard fantasy (breaks the laws of physics in a few areas, tries to logically extrapolate from there).

That's also why your examples of how I don't "get" hard sci-fi point at my descriptions of "hard fantasy", which I've explicitly stated is not hard sci-fi, and does not follow the same rules as hard sci-fi.

War_lord
2017-12-14, 07:15 PM
Both of you are failing to grasp the problem. Lets try again.


I've never had to use "suspension of disbelief" when reading "hard" fantasy. I don't have do suspend anything to believe the fantasy.

"Hard" fantasy is an oxymoron created by trying to take a very specific term from sci-fi subgenres and trying to apply the term to something totally different. Hard sci-fi is called "hard" because the author of the work takes great care to work within the bounds of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and so on). All fantasy works on a deliberate decision on the part of both author and reader to ignore the facts of these fields. You yourself don't contest this.


The key point for me is that a fantasy world is not our world, and as such the rules of our world don't have to apply. It is a hypothetical, theoretical fantasy world. If there are dragons in that world, that is a simple fact that is "true" of that world. So with that in mind, the "laws of physics" (or chemistry or whatever) are completely irrelevant to me when I read fantasy. What is relevant is that this fantasy world does have laws, and that those laws are consistent. For me, a proper "hard" fantasy as suggested in this post would have clean, clear and consistent laws.

That's not "hard" fantasy. What you're actually describing is a world that willfully ignores the "hard" sciences, but follows the conclusions of "soft" sciences. That's a coherent request, but calling it "hard" fantasy is just wrong. It's an inherent contradiction.

Even if an author managed to handwave things enough to come up with an environment in which something like a Dragon could exist without using magic to explain it, that environment would be a totally alien planet, nothing like the typical fantasy setting.


I have always felt this way, and I was quite happy to read a quote from Tolkien with a similar view:
"Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called "willing suspension of disbelief." But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true": it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying ... to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed."

Tolkien's talking about plausibility in story telling here, not the application of the "hard" sciences to those worlds. Fairy tales work on children because, not only to they lack knowledge of the "hard" sciences, they lack the intuitive understanding of the social sciences that most adults develop a degree of simply by existing in the adult world.


No, I really do.

That's why I drew a distinction between hard sci-fi (follows the laws of physics, perhaps extrapolates current scientific knowledge, does not break the laws of physics) and hard fantasy (breaks the laws of physics in a few areas, tries to logically extrapolate from there).

That's not what "hard" means in this context. I get the impression that some here are laboring under the assumption that the "hard" in "hard sci-fi" means "realistic" or "having verisimilitude". That's an incorrect assumption, if your work of fiction requires your audience to just ignore an unexplained breach of established physics, it's ignoring the "hard" sciences, and your work is therefore not "hard".


That's also why your examples of how I don't "get" hard sci-fi point at my descriptions of "hard fantasy", which I've explicitly stated is not hard sci-fi, and does not follow the same rules as hard sci-fi.

So then why describe it using a term that's literally derived from a specific sub-type of sci-fi? That's like inventing a new Cola and then marketing it as "cold coffee". Sure, it's black and it contains caffeine, but the similarities end there.

Mechalich
2017-12-14, 07:38 PM
"Anthropologically rigorious fantasy" doesn't make for catchy marketing, but it's probably the best term. Cultural fantasy makes me think of something like Earthbound, which is a fantasy story that uses Americana instead of Medievalism as a base.

Anthropologically rigorous is probably the best term, especially because it is possible to be so without having a highly consistent magic system. Witness the works of Guy Gavriel Kay. His novels are historical fantasy set in 'not-Earth' at various points in history. They absolutely include fantasy elements - and those elements have an impact on the plot - which are wildly inconsistent and serve the demands solely of what the author wants them to do, but, critically, they are always absolutely in line with what the people living in those not-Earth societies would have believed at the time. So when Ren Daiyan has an encounter with an actual fox woman in River of Stars it doesn't require any real suspension of disbelief, because everyone living in the Song Dynasty absolutely believed fox people existed and behaved a certain way.

For the overwhelming majority of human history almost all people believed absolutely in the existence of supernatural beings and the experience of supernatural phenomena. Some groups even made a point of recording them. So you can be on sociologically firm grounds as long as fantasy elements remain within the scope of what people actually believed, even if your mystical elements are inconsistent.



"Hard" fantasy, then, takes the impossible elements (be they dragons, magic, whatever), and attempts to extrapolate a believable world provided you accept the unbelievable elements. GoT has dragons, which are unbelievable, but it at least makes an attempt to consider the implications (being used as WMDs, their feeding, etc.).


It's also worth noting that GoT dragons are far less fantastical than D&D dragons, which has to do with the limitations imposed on fantastical elements when trying to make highly plausible fantasy settings.

Large flying 'reptiles' aren't fantasy; they're called Pterosaurs. Some of them, like Quetzalcoatlus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus) were quite large. Given that example, postulating an alternative evolutionary progression in which archosaurs evolved down a different path and ended up with much more bat-like wing-membranes and retained a saurian jaw structure instead of developing bills. That gets you something fairly close to a GoT dragon (admittedly the show went a little crazy with the spines and teeth and stuff in recent seasons).

Aliquid
2017-12-14, 07:41 PM
Both of you are failing to grasp the problem. Lets try again.Actually, I would argue that you are too fixated on your perception of reality.


"Hard" fantasy is an oxymoron created by trying to take a very specific term from sci-fi subgenres and trying to apply the term to something totally different. Hard sci-fi is called "hard" because the author of the work takes great care to work within the bounds of the "hard" sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics and so on). All fantasy works on a deliberate decision on the part of both author and reader to ignore the facts of these fields. You yourself don't contest this. True, but the term "hard" science vs "soft" science is based on the amount of rigor applied to the scientific field. So, "hard" vs "soft" fantasy could equally be differentiated by the amount of rigor.

Furthermore, the fact that you keep saying things like "ignore these fields" shows that you have a very different concept of a fantasy world. It appears that for you a fantasy world "should" follow our laws of physics, and since they don't you need to "suspend your disbelief". I personally don't see any reason why they should. It is a different reality with different rules.

It isn't "ignoring" our reality's science. Rather, our science simply doesn't apply. You can't ignore something that doesn't exist.


Even if an author managed to handwave things enough to come up with an environment in which something like a Dragon could exist without using magic to explain it, that environment would be a totally alien planet, nothing like the typical fantasy setting. Only if you are stuck with this obsessive need to apply "real world" science to explain things. Again, you don't need to "handwave" something that doesn't exist in the first place.


Tolkien's talking about plausibility in story telling here, not the application of the "hard" sciences to those worlds. Fairy tales work on children because, not only to they lack knowledge of the "hard" sciences, they lack the intuitive understanding of the social sciences that most adults develop a degree of simply by existing in the adult world. That was a rather bizarre interpretation of his quote. It isn't about plausibility. It is about verisimilitude. It is about being able to transport your mind to another reality and accept it as real.

To be honest I'm very glad that I am able to do that... I would miss out on a lot of the enjoyment of fictional media if I wasn't able to immerse myself into an alternate reality and accept it as true and real while I'm inside.


That's not what "hard" means in this context. I get the impression that some here are laboring under the assumption that the "hard" in "hard sci-fi" means "realistic" or "having verisimilitude". That's an incorrect assumption, if your work of fiction requires your audience to just ignore an unexplained breach of established physics, it's ignoring the "hard" sciences, and your work is therefore not "hard".Note... the word "science" isn't being used in the phrase "hard fantasy", the word "fantasy" is being used... when you put the two words together "hard fantasy", it literally means "fantasy which is hard", and "hard" in this context means "rigor", or "extremely thorough". In no way does the phrase "hard fantasy" have any relation to science.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-14, 08:56 PM
I read an article earlier this week about Richard Dawkins. It said he can't fathom someone understanding his argument and yet still not agreeing with him, so he just tries harder to explain or figures they're an idiot (paraphrasing).

Something to think about in these discussions.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-14, 08:58 PM
I read an article earlier this week about Richard Dawkins. It said he can't fathom someone understanding his argument and yet not agreeing with him, so he just tries harder to explain or figures they're an idiot (paraphrasing).

Something to ponder.

This is something I see quite often in many contexts--the idea that understanding === agreement. It's really annoying, especially on topics that have significant involvement of values, priorities, or subjective weighing of competing goods.

War_lord
2017-12-14, 11:53 PM
Note... the word "science" isn't being used in the phrase "hard fantasy", the word "fantasy" is being used... when you put the two words together "hard fantasy", it literally means "fantasy which is hard", and "hard" in this context means "rigor", or "extremely thorough". In no way does the phrase "hard fantasy" have any relation to science.

Hard sci-fi is a term with something like 60 years of provenance and acceptance between it. Borrowing that phrase and using it to explain a sub-genre within a genre that take the totally opposing attitude to fiction is needlessly confusing when more accurate terms exist.

Mr Beer
2017-12-15, 12:04 AM
Hard sci-fi is a term with something like 60 years of provenance and acceptance between it. Borrowing that phrase and using it to explain a sub-genre within a genre that take the totally opposing attitude to fiction is needlessly confusing when more accurate terms exist.

What are those terms? Apologies if they are buried in this thread, I didn't read every post.

Mechalich
2017-12-15, 12:39 AM
What are those terms? Apologies if they are buried in this thread, I didn't read every post.

It's the title of the thread, the idea of using the term 'hard fantasy' to apply a measure on some kind of scale of rigor in the same fashion that 'Hard Science Fiction' can be.

Personally, I'm inclined to broadly agree with War_Lord's assessment. Hard science fiction refers to the application of scientific principles in a work and the avoidance of blatantly non-scientific measures for the purpose of the rule of cool or some other storytelling reason. A simple example is sound in space. If you're being serious about your science, space is silent - there is no sound because there is no medium to transmit audio, full stop. Of course many nominally science fiction series violate this - even fairly serious ones like Babylon 5, because human observers expect audio.

Scientific 'hardness' in science fiction does not measure a work's overall rigor, internal consistency, or require the characters/societies to react in a reasonable fashion, it simply measures how legitimate the science is. It is possible to have a work that is crazy and weird and still be effectively scientifically grounded (someone mentioned Dune). At the same time it is possible to have extremely rigorous works that pay attention to their internal logic in great detail but violate scientific principles like crazy (like the Dread Empire's Fall novels).

In fantasy we have 'high-magic' and 'low-magic' (not the same thing as high fantasy and low fantasy, frustratingly) which defines the level of supernatural stuff is being crammed into a given universe. It is possible to have high magic with tightly structured internal rules (someone mentioned Brandon Sanderson, who seems to be the go to guy for this) or you can have high magic that is just plain crazy and does whatever you want it to do for the demands of the plot (like in the Mazalan Book of the Fallen). And the reverse is also true.

Now, the simple fact is that is much easier to retain consistency with a reduced magic level, and it can even be explained why using a scientific principle. As you add more energy to a system the more unstable it becomes. A fantasy universe is a system and magical elements are energy. Adding magic is roughly akin to placing a sealed water flask on a hot plate and gradually turning the dial up. Keep it up long enough and the glass bursts - representing a universe that breaks down catastrophically. Note that this is not a value judgment, it is possible to tell all kinds of fun stories in horrifically trash universes, like Dragonball, it's only a problem when the creators don't realize or pretend that their universe works when it in fact does not. At low levels of magic/heat the system is much easier to manage than one just on the edge of breaking.

Worth noting that a huge proportion of fantasy universes are built such that the author just turned the dial from low to high and the universe will eventually shatter but they're planning to get their story finished before that happens. ASOIAF and The Wheel of Time both take this approach, even the Lord of the Rings does it to a degree. This particular world-building device is much harder to use in table top roleplaying game design, because settings are generally expected to be stable over the long term.

Aliquid
2017-12-15, 12:41 AM
Hard sci-fi is a term with something like 60 years of provenance and acceptance between it. Borrowing that phrase and using it to explain a sub-genre within a genre that take the totally opposing attitude to fiction is needlessly confusing when more accurate terms exist.And the term hard liquor has something like 140 years of provenance... so can I say that "hard sci-fi" is an unacceptable term because reading it doesn't get you drunk? Words can be used for more than one application.

LordCdrMilitant
2017-12-15, 12:41 AM
I've never been honestly impressed with hard science fiction. I [will soon be] an Aerospace Engineer, with at least some focus on the second part of the portmanteau "Aerospace".

First off, if an [untrained] author could understand how and why it works, then I wouldn't need 4+2 years and $300000 of university education to learn that. If you can communicate the complexities of orbital mechanics, aerodynamics, material science, and thermodynamics to a layperson through literature, please please please right a book right now and send it to me overnight by the weekend, I have exams next week.

Personally, I don't really care for "hard" science fiction. I'd rather play a game of space cathedrals and sandworms and rubber-forehead-aliens and laser guns; because nobody's actually going to get it right, and if somebody does, I don't really want to sit there and do more work. From experience, the more an author tries to explain how things work, the more immersion breaking things get as it isn't actually how it works, and I can tell. My friend in economics has similar insight.



In short, leave the science to the scientists, the engineering to the engineers, and the economics to the economists. Likewise, I'll leave the writing to the authors, because I'd be a truly terrible writer.

Mr Beer
2017-12-15, 12:51 AM
What are those terms? Apologies if they are buried in this thread, I didn't read every post.


It's the title of the thread, the idea of using the term 'hard fantasy' to apply a measure on some kind of scale of rigor in the same fashion that 'Hard Science Fiction' can be.

I meant, 'what are those <more accurate terms>?'. Have amended my post to make this clearer.

Mechalich
2017-12-15, 01:40 AM
First off, if an [untrained] author could understand how and why it works, then I wouldn't need 4+2 years and $300000 of university education to learn that. If you can communicate the complexities of orbital mechanics, aerodynamics, material science, and thermodynamics to a layperson through literature, please please please right a book right now and send it to me overnight by the weekend, I have exams next week.

In short, leave the science to the scientists, the engineering to the engineers, and the economics to the economists. Likewise, I'll leave the writing to the authors, because I'd be a truly terrible writer.

Traditionally, many hard science fiction authors have been scientists. David Brin and Gregory Benford - authors of the hard science fiction classic Heart of the Comet, are both astrophysicists. Larry Niven and Greg Egan - two fairly prominent voices - both studied mathematics up to at least the graduate level. Sir Arthur C. Clarke, while not a practicing scientist professionally, worked on scientific journals, wrote technical material, and had connections like you would not believe. Stephen Baxter has a doctorate in engineering and taught math and science prior to becoming a writer full time. I could go on.

In any case, writing hard science fiction does not necessarily mean getting the nitty-gritty details of scientific or engineering processes correct, unless one is writing something super-technical like The Martian, it means adhering effectively to principles. The level of understanding necessary to write about established material in a given field for dissemination to the public is much lower than that necessary to actively pursue research to advance that field. This isn't even a specifically scientific thing, Tom Clancy became one of the most famous authors in America for writing about espionage and the military industrial complex in a way the was sufficiently accurate that he ended up meeting with actual military officials despite having a very limited military background. This sort of thing is very common.

Cazero
2017-12-15, 02:33 AM
Dune's only fantasy element is the spice - everything else has a LOT of explanation. Melee is important because of shield belts mostly cancelling all ranged weapons - and it was one of the first settings I know of that did the whole premise of lost technology explaining the gaps in tech. (for a more modern setting - 40k took the idea and ran with it)The basic premise of Dune breaks down under the slightest amount of scrutiny. Specificaly, the galactic spanning empire that absolutely needs spice to exist yet somehow established itself without it.
And while lost technology could explain that problem, it is in itself an absurdity. Nobody just loses technology, especialy something as important as FTL travel. It would need to be made obsolete (spice is only halfway plausible for that) and then be actively destroyed by an interested actor (pretty sure the Houses should have been able to stop the Guild from doing that).
As for spice being the only fantasy element, my counterpoint are the gholas. Clones of dead people without memories that can actualy get them back. If they are made from a few cells, the recovery is impossible. If they are made from the actual corpse, the memory loss is poorly explained (it's apparently a feature, so they should be able to make the recovery impossible).
"Explaining" why melee is no longer obsolete was trivial and cheap. Fantasy does that all the time.
I'll gloss over the insane politics and warring over absurd and meaningless things because that's the kind of things real people would actually do.
And that's just from the three first books I read. I heard the other books have a giant psychic worm god emperor.


Ender doesn't explain what all the tech is (since none of the main characters know) but it actually worries about stuff like relative time due to near-light speeds etc.Yeah. As a plot point. Fantasy can do that with magic just fine if said magic has some basic consistency. There is no meaningful difference here.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-15, 07:12 AM
On Dune, there are some elements that were a bit less fantastic when the books were first written that have become more so as the science on the subjects has advanced. Go back and look at the state of genetics and neurology in 1965.

As for lost technology, the FTL drive was not lost. What makes the spice-soaked Navigators necessary is the deliberate suppression of the advanced computers otherwise necessary to plot the jump paths.


On "hard fantasy", I'm not wed to the term, but keep in mind that Brennan also lays out the following parallel to explain her use of the term -- "hard fantasy and hard SF alike are concerned with how stuff works, and why."

CharonsHelper
2017-12-15, 07:27 AM
And while lost technology could explain that problem, it is in itself an absurdity. Nobody just loses technology, especialy something as important as FTL travel.

Lol - someone hasn't studied a lot of history. History is a series of civilizations rising and falling - and in the falling they lose technology! The fall of Rome is just one example. It has happened a bunch of times, and most of the time historians can't even track exactly why. Try looking up "The People of the Sea" who supposedly took down the height of The Bronze Age.

Burning of Alexandria anyone?


It would need to be made obsolete (spice is only halfway plausible for that) and then be actively destroyed by an interested actor (pretty sure the Houses should have been able to stop the Guild from doing that).

It's been awhile since I read it, but I remember Dune touching on the computer systems being made illegal and eventually lost due to their use as weapons in an ancient war that almost wiped out humanity. Maybe they did the bad AI thing like Skynet? But basically the guild had to do the calculations because they didn't have computers to do it anymore. Dune just implied the specifics and I can't recall exactly.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-15, 07:29 AM
It's been awhile since I read it, but I remember Dune touching on the computer systems being made illegal and eventually lost due to their use as weapons. Maybe they did the bad AI thing? But basically the guild had to do the calculations because they didn't have computers to do it anymore. Dune just implied the specifics and I can't recall exactly.


The Butlerian Jihad in response to an AI-pocolypse.

(I've only read Dune itself, but when I say I'm a setting and worldbuilding addict, I'm only exaggerating a little. I've read about the setting of the Dune series extensively.)

S@tanicoaldo
2017-12-15, 08:05 AM
Nobody just loses technology, especialy something as important as FTL travel.

Hahahahaha say that to greek fire.

Anyway, in dune, one of the best and most detailed settings ever made btw, there is a reason for the loss of technology, RELIGION!

The new religion claims that "thinking machines" are heresy so no computers are allowed to exist, the ftl travel was a thing but witout computers to check in you will end up in colliding with a meteor or something they need to use the spice, which gives the user limited prescience, allowing you to know if it's safe to go and where you'll end up without the use of computers.

Mechalich
2017-12-15, 08:58 AM
On "hard fantasy", I'm not wed to the term, but keep in mind that Brennan also lays out the following parallel to explain her use of the term -- "hard fantasy and hard SF alike are concerned with how stuff works, and why."

I think this is in error. It is entirely plausible and fair for the reason why something works in fantasy to be 'because god said so.' As long as god isn't inconsistent and doesn't behave like a schizophrenic on hallucinogens that's okay. For instance the elves in LotR are immortal because that's how Iluvatar arranged things do be, not because their biology is special. Indeed, the very point of fantasy, to some degree is about not having to explain why and thereby being able to do something in a story that would not be possible if one adhered strictly to the circumstances of the real world.

In science fiction speculating on that which could happen has inherent value - it represents a form of inquiry into possible human futures and considers issues that we may have to face as a species in due time. The harder you are the more valuable this is. Even deliberately impossible devices in science fiction - like FTL - are often used simply as a means to get characters and societies to a place where they can consider new possibilities like first contact.

Fantasy is fundamentally different. Since the world-building includes entirely fiat elements it exists to support the story and doesn't have inherent value. In fantasy with low amounts of supernatural elements and a high level of adherence to plausible human societies the fantasy is in many ways more of a hook than anything else to get the reader to jump into something that is otherwise historical fiction (or to make some other sort of point, as in the case of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which alters the historical record and adds in fantastical elements to make the plot better conform to Confucian ideals). This is absolutely what Guy Gavriel Kay does and, honestly, what Brennan did in A Natural History of Dragons. That story (and presumably universe, but I never got past book one) doesn't really grapple with how the terrestrial ecosystems of the planet would be dramatically changed by having large-bodied aerial predatory megafauna in all of them and doesn't actually contain that much natural history in the text. It's actually a story about a Victorian woman trying to become a naturalist, it's just that dragons are a subject with more popular appeal than any present day lifeforms or even a more plausible extinct option like pterosaurs.

Telling a story about how stuff works and why, when the stuff in question is 'something I totally made up' generally isn't that interesting and in fact may annoy people who find it detracts from the mystique and cheapens the archetypal nature of the story. The most famous example being, of course, midichlorians.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-15, 09:28 AM
I think this is in error. It is entirely plausible and fair for the reason why something works in fantasy to be 'because god said so.' As long as god isn't inconsistent and doesn't behave like a schizophrenic on hallucinogens that's okay. For instance the elves in LotR are immortal because that's how Iluvatar arranged things do be, not because their biology is special. Indeed, the very point of fantasy, to some degree is about not having to explain why and thereby being able to do something in a story that would not be possible if one adhered strictly to the circumstances of the real world.

In science fiction speculating on that which could happen has inherent value - it represents a form of inquiry into possible human futures and considers issues that we may have to face as a species in due time. The harder you are the more valuable this is. Even deliberately impossible devices in science fiction - like FTL - are often used simply as a means to get characters and societies to a place where they can consider new possibilities like first contact.

Fantasy is fundamentally different. Since the world-building includes entirely fiat elements it exists to support the story and doesn't have inherent value. In fantasy with low amounts of supernatural elements and a high level of adherence to plausible human societies the fantasy is in many ways more of a hook than anything else to get the reader to jump into something that is otherwise historical fiction (or to make some other sort of point, as in the case of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which alters the historical record and adds in fantastical elements to make the plot better conform to Confucian ideals). This is absolutely what Guy Gavriel Kay does and, honestly, what Brennan did in A Natural History of Dragons. That story (and presumably universe, but I never got past book one) doesn't really grapple with how the terrestrial ecosystems of the planet would be dramatically changed by having large-bodied aerial predatory megafauna in all of them and doesn't actually contain that much natural history in the text. It's actually a story about a Victorian woman trying to become a naturalist, it's just that dragons are a subject with more popular appeal than any present day lifeforms or even a more plausible extinct option like pterosaurs.

Telling a story about how stuff works and why, when the stuff in question is 'something I totally made up' generally isn't that interesting and in fact may annoy people who find it detracts from the mystique and cheapens the archetypal nature of the story. The most famous example being, of course, midichlorians.


The Lady Trent series gets into more detail on the biology of the dragons and their effect on the wider ecosystems (and on human cultures) as it goes on, and frankly it wouldn't be nearly as interesting if it didn't. You're grossly mischaracterizing the first book with that claim, let along the entire series.


All worldbuilding is "by fiat", in the sense that all fiction is "made up" -- trying to draw a line there is meaningless. The difference is in whether the worldbuilding is internally coherent and consistent, or grab-bag "rule of kewl".


Note that the actual phrasing Brennan uses is "concerned with how stuff works, and why". Not "about"... "concerned with". The story doesn't have to fixate on the minutia of how and why, to be concerned with it. And even if the how and why do play a central role, that in now way has to detract from the story.


(Personally, I find "mystique" overrated and archetypes to be actively poisonous.)


Comparing what we're talking about here with the midichlorians debacle is mistaken at best. E - seriously, how do you get midichlorians from rigorous worldbuilding?

CharonsHelper
2017-12-15, 09:39 AM
Even deliberately impossible devices in science fiction - like FTL

Actually - many scientists do believe that warp travel is theoretically possible - https://www.sciencealert.com/warp-speed-travel-is-theoretically-possible-according-to-top-astrophysicist (yes - I know it's pop science-y, but I'm not a scientist - sue me)

Now - I'm not saying it'll ever happen in our lifetimes - but not impossible.

Thinker
2017-12-15, 10:55 AM
The more I think about it, the more I like the term hard fantasy. It is short and to the point. It describes a rigorous approach to a subject material. When I think about what hard fantasy might be, I think it would have to be internally consistent and rely little on fiat, Mary Sues, or deus ex machina. The work itself might not show readers, viewers, or players a great depth, but the details would imply extrapolation of some kind from the core conceits. It does not require that the world be tied to the physical sciences of Earth, but to be tied to its own rules for the setting.

For example, let's say that there are intelligent, ambitious giants in the world, therefore they use their strengths to attempt to politically control what they can as it is their destiny to rule the continent from the Frostbound Steppes all the way to the Emerald Sea. They don't like tight spaces and they're poor at construction. This brings them into conflict with the long-lived elves who live in the Veiled Forest, who have clashed with the giants off and on for a thousand years. The elves have access to vast troves of knowledge, particularly in magic, history, and biology. None of the giants remember the last war, but many of the elves do and so the elves attempt to apply the same tactics that succeeded in the last war, but the giants' strategies have developed in that time and so the early goings of the war are disastrous for the elves. As the war goes on, the elves develop a magical, fatal plague that decimates the population of giants, giving them an upper hand. The elves are established to be knowledgeable in magic and biology and so they use this advantage to create a plague. All of that is well and good. If we suddenly said, "and then the giants built a giant tunnel under the forest to attack the elves," we'd have problems. The giants, who don't like tight spaces and are poor at construction have succeeded at a massive construction project that requires them to go into tight spaces.

It doesn't need to have any relationship with "hard science fiction" anymore than it needs to have a relationship with a "hardware", "hard liquor", "hard copy", "hard water", "hard target" or anything else that is "hard". You could say that this is different because hard science fiction is also an expression used to describe literary works. I don't see this as problematic. At its core, the term "hard" in hard science fiction is describing the rigor applied to the work. In the case of science fiction, this rigor is to our current understanding of science. Even in hard science fiction, we frequently have enabling devices that are there merely for the sake of the story - the biggest one being faster-than-light travel, but also can be time travel, interstellar travel, or odd features of a specific location like weird gravity on a specific planet or the world being shaped like a ring. This doesn't take away from the story and it allows the author to explore how the rest of the world would be impacted by these changes or an investigation into why the features of location are the way that they are or to identify problems with the conceit that might need to be fixed (*cough* Ringworld *cough*).

In the case of hard fantasy, the rigor would be in the setting's own rules. You can extrapolate what an easy-to-access spell like Create Food would do to a society. You can figure out how a flat earth would impact the politics and the diplomacy of the civilizations that live there. Just as in hard science fiction, hard fantasy takes and enabling device and says, "How does this impact the rest of the world?" Instead of throwing in giants because it's fun to say "Fee-fi-fo-fum", you use the giants in a way that their culture, size, strengths, and weaknesses matter. I'm also a big fan of Chekhov's Gun - "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." Though, that doesn't necessarily have to be a part of hard fantasy.

Scripten
2017-12-15, 01:03 PM
Hahahahaha say that to greek fire.

Or Damascus steel or the legions of lost computer science technologies. I work in software, on an OS with a very long history and a need to retain legacy function. (Some of our biggest customers are banks and such, so our systems have to run software that was written a good thirty years ago or more.) The concept of "brain drain" is applicable to individual industries and companies, not just entire societies. We have code parts that, while we understand how it works in general, the exact mechanisms are all but lost due to deaths and retirement.

Plus there's the loss of materials required for certain technologies such as here (https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/239699-world-war-ii-warships-submarines-stolen-off-ocean-floor). Imagine this as applied to something on the scale of, say... electronics in general, and you could see an entire society collapsing over a single change.

Aliquid
2017-12-15, 02:41 PM
In the case of hard fantasy, the rigor would be in the setting's own rules. You can extrapolate what an easy-to-access spell like Create Food would do to a society. You can figure out how a flat earth would impact the politics and the diplomacy of the civilizations that live there. Just as in hard science fiction, hard fantasy takes and enabling device and says, "How does this impact the rest of the world?" Instead of throwing in giants because it's fun to say "Fee-fi-fo-fum"Exactly. And I like pondering concepts of this nature.

For instance, in a D&D type world with a large city that has various high and mid level spell casters working for the city... what happens with the justice system? Spells like "zone of truth" and "discern lies" or any divination type spell being available would have a major impact. What would be the result?

Hmm... now I'm curious. I'm going to start a thread.

link to thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?544880-Impact-of-magic-on-justice-system&p=22668537#post22668537)

kyoryu
2017-12-15, 03:24 PM
Exactly. And I like pondering concepts of this nature.

For instance, in a D&D type world with a large city that has various high and mid level spell casters working for the city... what happens with the justice system? Spells like "zone of truth" and "discern lies" or any divination type spell being available would have a major impact. What would be the result?

Hmm... now I'm curious. I'm going to start a thread.

link to thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?544880-Impact-of-magic-on-justice-system&p=22668537#post22668537)

Tippyverse.

Aliquid
2017-12-15, 03:42 PM
Tippyverse.No idea what that means... but I did a search and found the thread about it. Looks like a lot of reading, but looks interesting (at first glance at least)

2D8HP
2017-12-15, 04:43 PM
...And while lost technology could explain that problem, it is in itself an absurdity. Nobody just loses technology....


As previously stated, there is real world historic precedent for technologies being lost, sometimes deliberately so.

The Chinese had and scuttled ocean going ships (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_history_of_China),

The knowledge of making

Roman concrete (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete)

was lost for centuries, and the recipe for

Greek fire (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire)

is still lost.

In my own work I've seen machines that functioned well for decades stop being used because the guy who knew how to maintain them died, increasingly plumbing fixtures in the building I maintain that work longer with less maintenance need to be replaced with inferior modern replacements because they're"obsolete" and replacement parts are no longer made, steam heating systems that provide more comfortable heat than modern forced air are replaced because the guys who knew how to build them are dead, etc.

That technological knowledge may be lost for centuries seems very plausible to me, I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise.


...what Brennan did in A Natural History of Dragons. That story (and presumably universe, but I never got past book one) doesn't really grapple with how the terrestrial ecosystems of the planet would be dramatically changed by having large-bodied aerial predatory megafauna in all of them and doesn't actually contain that much natural history in the text. It's actually a story about a Victorian woman trying to become a naturalist, it's just that dragons are a subject with more popular appeal than any present day lifeforms or even a more plausible extinct option like pterosaurs.
.
I really liked A Natural History of Dragons and the authors on-line works have been interesting, but the second, and half of the third books (despite hints of a fantasy "Voyage of the Beagle") in the series left me cold, as they read too much like someone trying to turn the contents of a Cultural Anthropology textbook into fiction.

BeerMug Paladin
2017-12-15, 05:20 PM
I've always thought of my preferred method of fantasy being "hard fantasy", but never really gave the term much thought beyond a rather simple concept.

Have some simple rules presented. A reader may never know all the rigorous applications of these rules. Show a couple of cases of "here's that principle at work" or "here's what peoples' application of this is". If there were real people living within a world they would naturally try lots of different things with magic and use whatever works on a consistent basis.

Have some basic questions about magical interaction answerable. Not everything needs to be answered, just enough to imply that within the context of the world itself, there are answers for theoretical questions an audience may have. I suspect to do this sort of thing best, the author would probably have answers for questions that are never explained to the audience.

As a bonus with this approach, something that isn't explained in depth can sort of be ad-hoc explained by the reader to themselves. Explanations of that nature are much more bullet-proof than an author could ever accomplish. The audience may even come up with better answers than whatever the author has in mind. They probably will, honestly.

Anything relevant to the actual plot should be presented in a bit more depth, since it's going to be something the audience "experiences" via the proxy of the main character(s). Everything else is fluff.

Really, the way I think of this, the only difference between this approach to fantasy and "hard" sci-fi is a matter of presentation. Do you babble about how quantum-Einsteinian-epigenetic flux causes the thing, or do you babble about how the orichalcum-mithral spiritual arcane principle causes the thing? The former can stymie a layman while annoying a scholar. The latter option seems a bit more honest and inclusive.

a_flemish_guy
2017-12-16, 10:23 PM
to me hard fantasy means one thing: "you can make people believe the impossible but not the improbable"

GOT has been mentioned before so I'll illustrate it
there's one thing that's really, really soft in GOT and that's scale, GRRM has absolutely no sense of scale
in the words of the man itself after they showed him the wall relative to the characters: "I made it too big"

and it doesn't end there, according to sources there where dragons in valyria as big as mountains and they could take flight
I don't know about you but I call bullcrap, flying firebreathing lizards, yes, they're impossable according to severall physic effects but them finding a way around the square/cube law is just improbable (there where jokes about how the cataclysm was just one of those trying to take off)
also it's not probable within the established lore, drogon is a small by dragon standards and he still needs a sheep or small child a day, how much would those dragons eat?

I've once seen the actor who plays sam answer a question why his character is still fat with the reasoning that there's zombies and dragons and henceforth it's silly to find it strange that he's fat

I disagree, I don't know how dragons or zombies work, it could and may very well be magical, that doesn't mean that fat is magical, I know how fat works and fat doesn't work like that!
(GRRM actually did put an explanation in the books, bassicly sam is still fat, he's lost a serious amount of weight but because he was super fat at the start he's still fat compared to his fellows)

so my advice: don't worry about how dragons fly, giants grow so big or how magic exists

worry instead about how a dragon get's enough prey, how a giant moves both fast and slow at the same time and that magic rules are actually consistent

icefractal
2017-12-18, 07:50 AM
"Fantasy that attempts internal consistency and logical extrapolation from its premises" is definitely my jam, for game settings at least, and I think "Hard Fantasy" is a pretty good term for it.

Besides immersion / suspension of disbelief, I think a big advantage, for games in particular, is the ability to invent / extrapolate things within the setting. For instance, notice how the Tippyverse and similar thought experiments pretty much stick to printed material instead of extrapolating "what kind of new spells could be invented"? I think in large part, that's because D&D has pretty much no consistency about what magic can/can't do or how difficult non-combat effects are. So there's no foundation to build on when you want to go outside what's already been written.

Mage, while far from perfect itself, does have some consistency to the metaphysics, so that for a desired effect, you can usually figure out what spheres would be involved and how difficult it would be.

Aliquid
2017-12-18, 10:04 AM
that's because D&D has pretty much no consistency about what magic can/can't do or how difficult non-combat effects are. So there's no foundation to build on when you want to go outside what's already been written.That's one of the main reasons I have stopped running games with D&D rules... it is too hard to run a "hard fantasy" game in D&D without making major changes.

Mr Beer
2017-12-18, 08:11 PM
t
I don't know about you but I call bullcrap, flying firebreathing lizards, yes, they're impossable according to severall physic effects but them finding a way around the square/cube law is just improbable (there where jokes about how the cataclysm was just one of those trying to take off)
also it's not probable within the established lore, drogon is a small by dragon standards and he still needs a sheep or small child a day, how much would those dragons eat?

I've once seen the actor who plays sam answer a question why his character is still fat with the reasoning that there's zombies and dragons and henceforth it's silly to find it strange that he's fat

I disagree, I don't know how dragons or zombies work, it could and may very well be magical, that doesn't mean that fat is magical, I know how fat works and fat doesn't work like that!

I enjoy the TV series but really hated a moment when a giant hit somebody in a battle and threw them hundreds of feet into the air. I know they're strong but if someone was hit that hard, they would disintegrate into a red mist. So a) they don't unleash the kind of kinetic energy normally seen in heavy artillery and b) if they did, human bodies don't behave like that.

Satinavian
2017-12-19, 03:03 AM
GOT has been mentioned before so I'll illustrate it
there's one thing that's really, really soft in GOT and that's scale, GRRM has absolutely no sense of scaleThat is so true.

And it is not only the dragons. The distaces and travel times don't match, the army sizes, numbers of lords, estimated population sizes don't match, the economy is wonky, the various timescales in the historical parts don't add up, the number and size of towns doesn't fit and so on.

The political stuff is not bad, but pretty much every number in any of the books doesn't make sense. It is less of a problem if you are only reading the books or viewing the show but if you try to take the setting for an RPG, it becomes so obvious everywhere.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 07:13 AM
That is so true.

And it is not only the dragons. The distaces and travel times don't match, the army sizes, numbers of lords, estimated population sizes don't match, the economy is wonky, the various timescales in the historical parts don't add up, the number and size of towns doesn't fit and so on.

The political stuff is not bad, but pretty much every number in any of the books doesn't make sense. It is less of a problem if you are only reading the books or viewing the show but if you try to take the setting for an RPG, it becomes so obvious everywhere.

And yet just because of the "grittiness", GRRM gets so much credit for being "realistic" or "doing his homework".

(I feel like I keep coming back to that, but it's hard to not view his work as overrated at this point.)

Satinavian
2017-12-19, 07:41 AM
Oh, i actually like the books. He has good characters and good conflicts. I always hated that "fantasy" meant the most simplicistic plot and most one-dimensional shallow characters because people didn't see it as a serious genre and therefore underestimated the audience.

But he also has some major weaknesses as author and numbers is one of them.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 11:45 AM
A related issue of worldbuilding where I see a difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that of choosing a starting point.

There are two extremes:
1) Forward extrapolation from real life. This style starts with a fixed baseline (real life) and asks "what happens if we change X." Alternate histories are commonly written from this perspective. For example, "what happens if the American Revolution failed?" or "what happens if gunpowder wasn't perfected when it was?". Near-future sci-fi often takes this approach to one degree or another.
** Advantages: a fixed, relatively well-known starting point and a consistent set of operating principles. Probably easier to research and make consistent (as long as the changes or time scale is short enough)--you don't have to redo as much.
** Disadvantages: Higher verisimilitude requirement. Your historiography and cultural data better be good. Exponentially compounding (and interrelated) causation makes distant extrapolations difficult (if you want to maintain consistency). If portrayed wrong, can bloat the setting or story with a bunch of "useless" facts and get in the way of the story/game-play.

2) Backward extrapolation from a desired end goal. This style starts with the end ("I want medieval-ish fantasy with dragons") and works backward to decide what the physical, magical, cultural and other parameters must have been to bring about the end goal. This is common in "hard" fantasy and a lot of sci-fi.
** Advantages: No restriction to "actual" history--you can pick and choose how things happened to guide history to your desired goal. This often leads to "convenient" histories, where everything is set up so that the events of the plot come about. Greenfield design makes it easier to adjust parameters as needed.
** Disadvantages: Often comes across as artificial or forced (even if there's a good logical chain from first cause to effect). Often produces a surface consistency that falls apart once you start digging (because the author only went so far in smoothing things out. Lends itself to being "soft" (ignoring inconvenient facts to make sure the desired story gets told).

Most fiction is probably a mix of the two (or just entirely hand-waved, which is style 2 without the extrapolation). Neither is bad, neither is good. But they're very different styles. You can do "hard" in either style, you can do "soft" in either style. But they have their advantages and disadvantages.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 11:58 AM
A related issue of worldbuilding where I see a difference between sci-fi and fantasy is that of choosing a starting point.

There are two extremes:
1) Forward extrapolation from real life. This style starts with a fixed baseline (real life) and asks "what happens if we change X." Alternate histories are commonly written from this perspective. For example, "what happens if the American Revolution failed?" or "what happens if gunpowder wasn't perfected when it was?". Near-future sci-fi often takes this approach to one degree or another.
** Advantages: a fixed, relatively well-known starting point and a consistent set of operating principles. Probably easier to research and make consistent (as long as the changes or time scale is short enough)--you don't have to redo as much.
** Disadvantages: Higher verisimilitude requirement. Your historiography and cultural data better be good. Exponentially compounding (and interrelated) causation makes distant extrapolations difficult (if you want to maintain consistency). If portrayed wrong, can bloat the setting or story with a bunch of "useless" facts and get in the way of the story/game-play.

2) Backward extrapolation from a desired end goal. This style starts with the end ("I want medieval-ish fantasy with dragons") and works backward to decide what the physical, magical, cultural and other parameters must have been to bring about the end goal. This is common in "hard" fantasy and a lot of sci-fi.
** Advantages: No restriction to "actual" history--you can pick and choose how things happened to guide history to your desired goal. This often leads to "convenient" histories, where everything is set up so that the events of the plot come about. Greenfield design makes it easier to adjust parameters as needed.
** Disadvantages: Often comes across as artificial or forced (even if there's a good logical chain from first cause to effect). Often produces a surface consistency that falls apart once you start digging (because the author only went so far in smoothing things out. Lends itself to being "soft" (ignoring inconvenient facts to make sure the desired story gets told).

Most fiction is probably a mix of the two (or just entirely hand-waved, which is style 2 without the extrapolation). Neither is bad, neither is good. But they're very different styles. You can do "hard" in either style, you can do "soft" in either style. But they have their advantages and disadvantages.


Both of my fantasy settings are a combination of both -- working in both directions at once -- although the "forward extrapolation" isn't strictly from the real world, but from the elements I want to use and the starting conditions that I think will get me to where I want to go and that, honestly, just sounded interesting to me.

Maybe I come across as demanding a strict "work forward" approach, but that's not my intent. The point isn't the particular process, the point is to have a process. I'm trying hard to not be "judgey" about Kitchen Sink Settings because I don't want to fall into the "badwrongfun" trap... but they really do strike me as just throwing stuff in because it looks cool and not caring if it makes any sense.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 12:01 PM
Both of my fantasy settings are a combination of both -- working in both directions at once -- although the "forward extrapolation" isn't strictly from the real world, but from the elements I want to use and the starting conditions that I think will get me to where I want to go and that, honestly, just sounded interesting to me.

Maybe I come across as demanding a strict "work forward" approach, but that's not my intent. The point isn't the particular process, the point is to have a process. I'm trying hard to not be "judgey" about Kitchen Sink Settings because I don't want to fall into the "badwrongfun" trap... but they really do strike me as just throwing stuff in because it looks cool and not caring if it makes any sense.

And I probably came across more judgy than I meant to. It was more a musing on a related (but largely orthogonal) issue. I do think that "makes sense" (in this context) is not an objective measure. It strongly depends on the person (and their frame of reference). Heck--there are lots of things in real life that don't "make sense", although I'm sure that causality is maintained throughout and everything's consistent. That's what happens when you have very large, complex, strongly interacting systems.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 12:52 PM
And I probably came across more judgy than I meant to. It was more a musing on a related (but largely orthogonal) issue. I do think that "makes sense" (in this context) is not an objective measure. It strongly depends on the person (and their frame of reference). Heck--there are lots of things in real life that don't "make sense", although I'm sure that causality is maintained throughout and everything's consistent. That's what happens when you have very large, complex, strongly interacting systems.


"Doesn't make sense" can be as simple as the classic example from "default quasi-medieval" D&D-like fantasy settings. Here's a setting CHOCK FULL of flying armored fire-breathing spell-casting beings (dragons, wizards, extraplanar whatnots, etc, etc, etc), massive damage spells, invisibility, teleportation, and other fantastic threats. But... it also has stereotypical castles and fortresses copied right out of real-life Europe, which appear to have been built with ZERO regard for those other elements of the setting.

Some proponents of those settings go down a rabbit-hole of increasingly convoluted justifications.

Others just say "dragons are cool, wizards are cool, castles are cool, it's fantasy and you're being a nerd".

kyoryu
2017-12-19, 01:29 PM
Some proponents of those settings go down a rabbit-hole of increasingly convoluted justifications.

Others just say "dragons are cool, wizards are cool, castles are cool, it's fantasy and you're being a nerd".

If you're gonna go kitchen sink, I'd go with the latter, because, well, it's the truth. I may not say "you're being a nerd", though.

I mean, really, that's the goal is to have these cool things in there, so go with that. Own it. Cool stuff is the primary goal, plausibility is secondary.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 01:49 PM
"Doesn't make sense" can be as simple as the classic example from "default quasi-medieval" D&D-like fantasy settings. Here's a setting CHOCK FULL of flying armored fire-breathing spell-casting beings (dragons, wizards, extraplanar whatnots, etc, etc, etc), massive damage spells, invisibility, teleportation, and other fantastic threats. But... it also has stereotypical castles and fortresses copied right out of real-life Europe, which appear to have been built with ZERO regard for those other elements of the setting.

Some proponents of those settings go down a rabbit-hole of increasingly convoluted justifications.

Others just say "dragons are cool, wizards are cool, castles are cool, it's fantasy and you're being a nerd".When it comes down to it, I'm really conflicted on this whole subject. I find it hard to immerse myself in a world without effort being put into these things. So, for the dragon example, I don't even want convoluted justifications, I want the castles replaced with something else... or castles with modifications to address the new threats.

BUT... a DM, or author can't think of everything, and they aren't an expert in everything. They could make a world that makes sense from their perspective, and then I look at the world map and say "it would be impossible for there to be a desert at that location, and that mountain range makes no sense." Then the author will have to be able to explain why his world has different geomorphological and climatological rules, and what those rules are.

I can't even say "well at least put an effort into it and deal with the obvious implications of being in a fantasy world where ___ exists". What is obvious to me is very different from what is obvious to the next person.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 02:47 PM
When it comes down to it, I'm really conflicted on this whole subject. I find it hard to immerse myself in a world without effort being put into these things. So, for the dragon example, I don't even want convoluted justifications, I want the castles replaced with something else... or castles with modifications to address the new threats.

BUT... a DM, or author can't think of everything, and they aren't an expert in everything. They could make a world that makes sense from their perspective, and then I look at the world map and say "it would be impossible for there to be a desert at that location, and that mountain range makes no sense." Then the author will have to be able to explain why his world has different geomorphological and climatological rules, and what those rules are.

I can't even say "well at least put an effort into it and deal with the obvious implications of being in a fantasy world where ___ exists". What is obvious to me is very different from what is obvious to the next person.

I do that thing with maps, too, looking at the climatology and geology and such.

And history... and politics... and religion... and warfare & weapons & armor... and economics... and cultures... and yeah...

It's a good thing I enjoy worldbuilding, because it's not easy.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 02:52 PM
I do that thing with maps, too, looking at the climatology and geology and such.

And history... and politics... and religion... and warfare & weapons & armor... and economics... and cultures... and yeah...

It's a good thing I enjoy worldbuilding, because it's not easy.I am able to put aside many geographical errors when looking at maps, and just say to myself that the fantasy world has different rules... but there are things I can't let slide, like "Hey... you know that map of your world? Look at that river. It would have to run uphill at some point to get to that destination."

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 02:57 PM
I am able to put aside many geographical errors when looking at maps, and just say to myself that the fantasy world has different rules... but there are things I can't let slide, like "Hey... you know that map of your world? Look at that river. It would have to run uphill at some point to get to that destination."

If a setting apparently has different rules, then I start looking at where those other rules would apply, and if it's not consistent and coherent, then I figure that it's not a matter of different rules, it's a matter of bad worldbuilding or an author who simply didn't give a... dang.

Yora
2017-12-19, 03:11 PM
Eh, that map probably isn't very accurate anyway.

Which is why I really don't like modern maps that look like satelite images. Fantasy maps are for orientation to understand what's going on, not for geographic and geologic surveys.

When it comes to fantastic elements, I am always much more interested in the exotic than the rules rewriting. My monsters tend to be mostly fictional animals and the supernatural creatures have very limited powers and are very rare. A castle not being dragon proof is not a problem when dragon attacks are not something that is reasonably expected to happen. My magic leans heavily to hints and deception rather than instant knowledge and instant free access. I don't really do battle magic at all.


That's one of the main reasons I have stopped running games with D&D rules... it is too hard to run a "hard fantasy" game in D&D without making major changes.

At some point early into AD&D, D&D became something that is really only good at running D&D settings.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 03:57 PM
Eh, that map probably isn't very accurate anyway.

Which is why I really don't like modern maps that look like satelite images. Fantasy maps are for orientation to understand what's going on, not for geographic and geologic surveys.

When it comes to fantastic elements, I am always much more interested in the exotic than the rules rewriting. My monsters tend to be mostly fictional animals and the supernatural creatures have very limited powers and are very rare. A castle not being dragon proof is not a problem when dragon attacks are not something that is reasonably expected to happen. My magic leans heavily to hints and deception rather than instant knowledge and instant free access. I don't really do battle magic at all.


If dragons are something that happen multiple generations and 100s of miles apart, then castles being more historical-like isn't that big a deal... but the general D&D setting seems to be rife with dragons and other flying, death-spewing threats.




At some point early into AD&D, D&D became something that is really only good at running D&D settings.


Yeap.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 04:29 PM
If dragons are something that happen multiple generations and 100s of miles apart, then castles being more historical-like isn't that big a deal... but the general D&D setting seems to be rife with dragons and other flying, death-spewing threats.


I think that's partly due to seeing things through the lens of PCs (or fantasy protagonists generally). They're not a random sample--we don't play the game of "farmer who never saw anything." We play as heroes doing heroic things. Seeking out danger. In many settings, things like dragons and high magic are rare. The exception really (like in many things) was 3e--the demographic tables were all screwy and had way too many high level people in general. But that whole edition was wack.

At least in my setting, things like hostile dragons are legends. Dragons aren't--there's one the claims a city as her hoard (but the worst she ever did is kidnap people to tell her stories. And then pay them well). Until recently, monsters were things that existed "out there", beyond the safe walls.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-19, 04:32 PM
The exception really (like in many things) was 3e--the demographic tables were all screwy and had way too many high level people in general.

Forgotten Realms had scads of higher level adventurers every which way well before 3e.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 05:47 PM
In terms of being persons who inhabit their world, I don't really buy into PCs being special exceptions (exceptional yes, rare yes... exceptions no) where each group of PCs is treated as if they're the only group of special chosen unique powerhouses of their century or whatever. The idea that each group of PCs is yet another special bunch of unmatched paragons... no. That might work in authorial fiction, but it wears thin in a game setting.

If PC Bob can become a high-level fighter or spellcaster or cleric, than so can some NPCs.

What the PCs can do tells us something about the world they inhabit and what's possible there. If the PCs are fighting dragons, that means there are dragons to fight.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 06:16 PM
In terms of being persons who inhabit their world, I don't really buy into PCs being special exceptions (exceptional yes, rare yes... exceptions no) where each group of PCs is treated as if they're the only group of special chosen unique powerhouses of their century or whatever. The idea that each group of PCs is yet another special bunch of unmatched paragons... no. That might work in authorial fiction, but it wears thin in a game setting.

If PC Bob can become a high-level fighter or spellcaster or cleric, than so can some NPCs.

What the PCs can do tells us something about the world they inhabit and what's possible there. If the PCs are fighting dragons, that means there are dragons to fight.

But they're exceptional by their nature. Out of the many adventurers that start off, they survived. It's survivorship bias. Also, the tables are way off as to how many reach those levels. Yes, pre-3e FR had lots of high-level ex-adventurers walking around, but they were a drop in the bucket. It seems that you'd run into them a lot, but that's a narrative, rather than in-fiction thing. As a proportion of the population, those ex-adventurers were indistinguishable from zero. The PCs aren't destined heroes, but they're rare. We follow their story because it's maximally interesting. We don't hear about the many adventurers who either died to wolves on their first adventure or never saw anything more than goblins in the woods. Because those are boring.

3e altered this (as I understand it) and gave a breakdown of how many NPCs of which levels (and classes) you'd have in a given average town. And ended up with absurd (to me at least) numbers. This was a consequence of forcing NPCs to run on the same set of class/level restrictions as PCs (especially where skills are concerned). If the king (to be able to persuade people to follow him) had to be level X (something pretty high) and the priest had to have Y levels in Cleric to ask for miracles, you end up with a screwy distribution.

4e and 5e went away from this by making it clear that classes and levels (and the attendant baggage) are purely game conceits--they're simply a UI that allows a simple way of allocating powers and stats. In-universe, only a rare few priests are Clerics (or can cast spells at will at all instead of being granted miracles at the will of their deity). Personally, I strongly prefer this way, both from a world-building perspective and a game-running perspective. The rules exist to deal with interactions between PCs and their environment, including the NPCs, in a way that we can use to play a game. That's all. They are simplifications and abstractions of the real thing, sure, but shouldn't be taken too seriously as an actual window into the fictional universe's behavior. That comes from the fictional side of things, not the rule side of things.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-19, 06:20 PM
4e and 5e went away from this by making it clear that classes and levels (and the attendant baggage) are purely game conceits--they're simply a UI that allows a simple way of allocating powers and stats.

Actually - even in 3.5, Eberron considerably lowered average level relative to 3.x in general, though they still had kings etc. with a good chunk of levels.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 06:29 PM
Actually - even in 3.5, Eberron considerably lowered average level relative to 3.x in general, though they still had kings etc. with a good chunk of levels.

And that was a good thing. IIRC, a lot of that came from using NPC classes with strongly restricted power instead of FR's habit of using PC class levels for NPCs.

Currently I'm working on a power-level-equivalent breakdown for the core nations of my setting. My most populous nation (at about 300k people spread out over something roughly the same area as New York State, with 20k in the capital) has about 10 people capable of casting 9th level spells. 3 bards (one former character made ageless, and two of his descendants; the dude is responsible for something like 25% of the half-elves of the nation :smallbiggrin:), 3 clerics (One each of Justice, Winter/Death, and Summer/Sun/Strength), 2 wizards, and 2 others. Lots of people (~10% of the population) can work ritual spells, but can't cast spells from slots. Another 10% can cast 1st level spells, and the numbers plummet from there.

When the PCs retire (if they actually do), they'll represent a full 29% of the high-power-level people in the entire nation. That's ok--they did their adventuring elsewhere. Outside of settled lands. Against foes that were either ancient, planar, or both.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 06:36 PM
In terms of being persons who inhabit their world, I don't really buy into PCs being special exceptions (exceptional yes, rare yes... exceptions no) where each group of PCs is treated as if they're the only group of special chosen unique powerhouses of their century or whatever. The idea that each group of PCs is yet another special bunch of unmatched paragons... no. That might work in authorial fiction, but it wears thin in a game setting.

If PC Bob can become a high-level fighter or spellcaster or cleric, than so can some NPCs.

What the PCs can do tells us something about the world they inhabit and what's possible there. If the PCs are fighting dragons, that means there are dragons to fight.I'm running a game (not D&D, but a fantasy world), with some kids new to the game. I've made a point of having them run into other NPC adventurers (especially in highly populated areas), and witness the Duke give awards to people other than just them for heroic acts to help the city.

At one point while they were sneaking across town over the rooftops at night, they witnessed a pair of adventurers hunting werewolves. I expected the players to jump in and help, but they decided to just watch briefly and move on. "not our problem, we got other things to deal with". There was also a time where monsters were streaming out of a building and the PCs heard the cries for help, so ran to assist. Some other NPC adventurers joined in the fight right near then end of the battle and then tried to take all the credit. Now that really pissed off one of the players, her character went full out ballistic on the NPC (verbally).

RazorChain
2017-12-19, 07:08 PM
But they're exceptional by their nature. Out of the many adventurers that start off, they survived. It's survivorship bias. Also, the tables are way off as to how many reach those levels. Yes, pre-3e FR had lots of high-level ex-adventurers walking around, but they were a drop in the bucket. It seems that you'd run into them a lot, but that's a narrative, rather than in-fiction thing. As a proportion of the population, those ex-adventurers were indistinguishable from zero. The PCs aren't destined heroes, but they're rare. We follow their story because it's maximally interesting. We don't hear about the many adventurers who either died to wolves on their first adventure or never saw anything more than goblins in the woods. Because those are boring.

3e altered this (as I understand it) and gave a breakdown of how many NPCs of which levels (and classes) you'd have in a given average town. And ended up with absurd (to me at least) numbers. This was a consequence of forcing NPCs to run on the same set of class/level restrictions as PCs (especially where skills are concerned). If the king (to be able to persuade people to follow him) had to be level X (something pretty high) and the priest had to have Y levels in Cleric to ask for miracles, you end up with a screwy distribution.

4e and 5e went away from this by making it clear that classes and levels (and the attendant baggage) are purely game conceits--they're simply a UI that allows a simple way of allocating powers and stats. In-universe, only a rare few priests are Clerics (or can cast spells at will at all instead of being granted miracles at the will of their deity). Personally, I strongly prefer this way, both from a world-building perspective and a game-running perspective. The rules exist to deal with interactions between PCs and their environment, including the NPCs, in a way that we can use to play a game. That's all. They are simplifications and abstractions of the real thing, sure, but shouldn't be taken too seriously as an actual window into the fictional universe's behavior. That comes from the fictional side of things, not the rule side of things.

You are looking at this through D&D lenses. When I'm world building the mechanics come second. If the mechanics can't support the world then I need new mechanics. The problem is that the creators of D&D have published worlds that aren't supported with the mechanics and they are bound by said mechanics whereas I aren't.

So in D&D land when that soldier in the castle is manning the ballista cannot hit the dragon because of the mechanics unless he's high enough level or it's a +5 Ballista. This is when the mechanics and the world starts to clash. In another system there might be a ballista skill and I can just reasonably assume that the soldier manning the ballista has trained using it else he wouldn't be manning the ballista.

So if we start to look at level spread, let's not even go the way that there is a level 1 guy for every ten 0 level guys. Let's just say for every two 0 level guys there is a level 1 guy and etc.

20th level : 1
19th level : 2
18th level : 4
17th level : 8
16th level : 16
15th level : 32
14th level : 64
13th level : 128
12th level : 256
11th level : 512
10th level : 1024
9th level : 2048
8th level : 4096
7th level : 8192
6th level : 16384
5th level : 32768
4th level : 65536
3rd level : 131072
2nd level : 262144
1st level : 524288
0 level : 1048576

So here you have one 20th level character for every 2.2 million people/creature/whatever. If you want to stretch this to 1 in 5 then you have a 20th level character for every 100+ million people and god forbid if you stretch this to 1 in 10 ration because then you have a 20th level guy for billions upon billions of people.

So when your character walks into Mudtown with the population of 1300 then even if we go for the 1 in 5 then there should at least be around two 4th level guys, ten 3rd level guys, fifty 2nd level guys and two hundred and fifty 1st level guys.

So the question is how many adventurers have to die for one to reach level 20?

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 08:16 PM
You are looking at this through D&D lenses. When I'm world building the mechanics come second. If the mechanics can't support the world then I need new mechanics. The problem is that the creators of D&D have published worlds that aren't supported with the mechanics and they are bound by said mechanics whereas I aren't.

So in D&D land when that soldier in the castle is manning the ballista cannot hit the dragon because of the mechanics unless he's high enough level or it's a +5 Ballista. This is when the mechanics and the world starts to clash. In another system there might be a ballista skill and I can just reasonably assume that the soldier manning the ballista has trained using it else he wouldn't be manning the ballista.

So if we start to look at level spread, let's not even go the way that there is a level 1 guy for every ten 0 level guys. Let's just say for every two 0 level guys there is a level 1 guy and etc.

20th level : 1
19th level : 2
18th level : 4
17th level : 8
16th level : 16
15th level : 32
14th level : 64
13th level : 128
12th level : 256
11th level : 512
10th level : 1024
9th level : 2048
8th level : 4096
7th level : 8192
6th level : 16384
5th level : 32768
4th level : 65536
3rd level : 131072
2nd level : 262144
1st level : 524288
0 level : 1048576

So here you have one 20th level character for every 2.2 million people/creature/whatever. If you want to stretch this to 1 in 5 then you have a 20th level character for every 100+ million people and god forbid if you stretch this to 1 in 10 ration because then you have a 20th level guy for billions upon billions of people.

So when your character walks into Mudtown with the population of 1300 then even if we go for the 1 in 5 then there should at least be around two 4th level guys, ten 3rd level guys, fifty 2nd level guys and two hundred and fifty 1st level guys.

So the question is how many adventurers have to die for one to reach level 20?




So in D&D land when that soldier in the castle is manning the ballista cannot hit the dragon because of the mechanics unless he's high enough level or it's a +5 Ballista. This is when the mechanics and the world starts to clash. In another system there might be a ballista skill and I can just reasonably assume that the soldier manning the ballista has trained using it else he wouldn't be manning the ballista.

This right here is where the mechanics go sideways and the cause of all the screwy results. It makes levels an actual thing in-universe and forces a particular distribution of power levels that has far-reaching results. I play 5e, where this assumption is not in play. Bounded accuracy takes care of that--even a bunch of CR 1/8 guards with bows can be a serious threat to a dragon, and the ballista uses its own stats.


I'm currently (as in, on the other screen as I type this) working through the spell-casting capability matrix for some of my cultures. These aren't class levels, but more "can cast the same levels of spells as a X of level Y." My working assumptions are as follows:

* Zero level casting (rituals + cantrips) are relatively easy to acquire.
* First level casting (magic initiate, racial casting, or the equivalent) is about as common.
* Magic comes in tiers: level 0, levels 1-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9. Moving within a tier is easy, moving between tiers represents a big leap. This comes from the observed power of spells--2nd level are ~ 1st level, 3rd are a lot bigger, 6th are a lot bigger than 5th, and 9th are huge compared to 8th.

This leads to the following breakdown:



Highest Spell Slot
Weight


9
1


8
10


7
20


6
40


5
400


4
800


3
1600


2
16000


1
32000


0
32000



This leaves my bigger base nations with ~1 person that can cast 9th level spells. This varies a bit, because I take race into account as well, but...
About 30% can cast spells over all, with 22% restricted to level 1 or 0 casting. I'm still tweaking the numbers, but I think it looks reasonable so far.

No NPCs has PC class levels--those only exist for PCs. They may cast similar spells in similar ways (to save my sanity, if nothing else), but they're not Clerics, or Paladins. They're acolytes, priests, or zealots. The idea that classes and levels (and XP) are an in-universe reality annoys me. It's turning a UI convention into a physical reality.

Edit: And to answer the question--in canon history there have been no adventurers who reached level 20. The group who is highest (level 17 right now) stopped adventuring and settled down at level ~10 in the canon timeline. There are people who (for example) cast 9th level spells, but they aren't adventurers and don't have the class features, etc of PCs.

Aliquid
2017-12-19, 09:50 PM
So the question is how many adventurers have to die for one to reach level 20?Well, they don't all have to die.
- Some might make it to level 3 and suffer from so much PTSD that they have no interest in continuing.
- Some might make it to level 5 and realize they have enough money to buy a little place on the countryside and retire
etc.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-12-19, 09:59 PM
Well, they don't all have to die.
- Some might make it to level 3 and suffer from so much PTSD that they have no interest in continuing.
- Some might make it to level 5 and realize they have enough money to buy a little place on the countryside and retire
etc.

This. Or they may cap out. Outside of 3.X, there's no indication that all people (PCs aside) can reach all power levels. I tend to do it by tiers--lots can't even get to level 1, most of those can't get beyond level 4, very few to level 11, a tiny fraction to level 17, and an infinitesimal amount to level 20. We just watch PCs because they're some of the rare few who (if the campaign gets that far) could in theory get to 20. Who knows, if they retire at level X, they may have capped (in-universe) at level X+1, or maybe had no cap. Without adventuring, levels don't increase. Power can (boons, political status, etc), but not PC class levels.

Segev
2017-12-19, 10:00 PM
I often enjoy the "Work backwards" approach. And then working back forwards to see what the things I've explained would still change in the setting.

One easy-ish approach to justifying European castles is "dragons and wizards and the like are rare and usually aren't attacking castles." The keep of a dragonslayer may well look exotic and different to deal with its higher probability of encountering the targets of its master's profession.

Max_Killjoy
2017-12-19, 11:14 PM
This. Or they may cap out. Outside of 3.X, there's no indication that all people (PCs aside) can reach all power levels. I tend to do it by tiers--lots can't even get to level 1, most of those can't get beyond level 4, very few to level 11, a tiny fraction to level 17, and an infinitesimal amount to level 20. We just watch PCs because they're some of the rare few who (if the campaign gets that far) could in theory get to 20. Who knows, if they retire at level X, they may have capped (in-universe) at level X+1, or maybe had no cap. Without adventuring, levels don't increase. Power can (boons, political status, etc), but not PC class levels.

To me this is a bit like having a game with a modern-day setting and saying that only the PCs can get doctorates, and all NPCs are confined to high school education or at best a bachelor's for a few of them.

CharonsHelper
2017-12-19, 11:21 PM
To me this is a bit like having a game with a modern-day setting and saying that only the PCs can get doctorates, and all NPCs are confined to high school education or at best a bachelor's for a few of them.

I'd argue it's more like having a game where PCs are scientists allowing anyone to go to college, but PCs are the ones playing Einstein style characters making all of the groundbreaking discoveries. Sure - anyone can research, but even of those only a small % of those (relatively rare) scientists are going to make those breakthroughs.

Mr Beer
2017-12-19, 11:26 PM
To me this is a bit like having a game with a modern-day setting and saying that only the PCs can get doctorates, and all NPCs are confined to high school education or at best a bachelor's for a few of them.

"PCs are different and special" is a feature rather than a bug IMO. I don't run games where only PCs can level up but I don't hate the notion. I wouldn't consider it to be typical of a "hard fantasy" setting though.

SleeplessWriter
2017-12-30, 02:48 AM
As a science fiction and fantasy writer and enthusiast, I love the idea of Hard Fantasy. Much of that comes from the fact that when making a fantasy world I often like to approach it with methods from from science fiction, and treat magic as much like a set of physics, or at least something with consistent enough rules and tendencies. As for the genre debate, all I'm going to say is that academics and writers have gone through the whole science fiction versus fantasy debate, and so far all that's concretely come out of that is people getting tired of the whole affair and tossing the two into the overgenre Speculative Fiction; and as for Anthropologically Rigorous Fantasy, that sounds less like a genre, and more like a goal.
As a cousin and a counterpoint to Hard Sci-Fi, Hard Fantasy seems, at least to me, to say, "If Hard Sci-Fi gets its FTL, then I can get my magic." (Other people most likely have a different view, since genres are culturally and individually defined, which is the main cause of said headache inducing debates. Even if they're interesting, they can get out of hand real fast.)
In short, what I'm saying is that Hard Fantasy lets you use the tools from science fiction for the fantasy genre in much the same way that Hard Fantasy lets you strip away many of the extra expectations, cliches, and assumptions of the science fiction genre (e.g. blasters, instantaneous communication, always humanoid aliens, etc.). In essence, they both let you strip away many of the more frivolous and unrealistic elements that are often expected of the genre, and they both give the worldbuilder a certain mindset about what is, and isn't, possible in their world.
(Side note: I also like Speculative Fiction because it lets you get away from the binary of science fiction and fantasy, and instead lets you use tools from the two simultaneously.)