What does "Fantasy Setting" mean to you?

[eepop]

I'm working on an rpg, and I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on how "Fantasy Setting" is defined.

Lets say you are at your FLGS, you notice a new core rulebook on the shelf for some RPG you've never heard of. You start flipping through it.

Are there things that if you saw in a picture would make you close the book, put it back on the shelf and walk away without reading it anymore?
Steampunk-ish artifice?
Psionics?
Robotic characters ala warforged?
Guns?
Anything else?


Thanks for your input!

[Prodan]

Lizard women with boobies.

[Tengu_temp]

Why are you assuming I'd stop reading a book if it turned out not to be pure fantasy?

[Cainen]

Yes, there is one thing that will make me close the book faster than you can blink.

Said thing is a picture of a generic fantasy setting with no elements of other genres attached to it. There's a glut of them; adding to the pile doesn't really help.

[Agrippa]

Why are you assuming I'd stop reading a book if it turned out not to be pure fantasy?

I think he's just asking us if it would. I wouldn't stop reading or playing a fantasy story or game just because it wasn't "pure fantasy".

[oxybe]

honestly? pure tolkein-esque fantasy bores me to no end. it's been done, hashed, re-hashed and re-done enough times to bore me. i've played in too many published and homebrew settings that are just "standard fantasy setting #RKX782-23KB". many of those settings just start blending together unless it has an element that REALLY makes it stick out.

2 examples:

Eberron and it's use of magic. still fantasy, but rather then treating magic as very "hush hush ooooh secret" thing or "MAGIC BAD!" it uses it to actually make the life of it's people a little easier. it treats magic as a science they don't fully understand, but can still use. creation forges, airships, lighting rails, ect... and the general spread of low-level magic items.

Dark Sun. very much fantasy, but the dystopian, mad-max-esque crapsack world it presents where "MAGIC BAD!" has been brought to the extreme and the world is dead is the hook that got me interested. it gives an interesting twist to many familiar races. Athas is a lost cause to the point where the gods have up and left, leaving the world to die.

Grayhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms? each have their own little hooks and niches, but they all blend together for me. they're all pretty generic fantasy... with a twist!

the only fantasy settings that turn me away lately are those that label themselves as just that "fantasy setting" and nothing more.

[Marnath]

If i went to the effort to drive all the way to the store where such things are sold, i'd have no problems reading it due to the fact that i a) go places with a set goal and put all my effort into it and b) lose track of time when i'm reading, unless it's really terribad. As far as what would i rather see in a fantasy setting? I prefer swords and sorcery type stuff like the "generic" settings, not a huge fan of guns unless it's WH40k.

[WhiteHarness]

My tastes run exactly the opposite of oxybe's.

I like Tolkien-esque fantasy, but with the technology slightly advanced to include plate armour--i.e. most D&D gaming settings.

Things like Dark Sun just seem to me to be striving for weirdness for its own sake, and they wind up being too far removed from the elements that made me fall in love with the genre in the first place for me to enjoy it. Bleh! No thanks; give me more of what I like, please, and keep the strangeness to a minimum.

[Zaydos]

I like Tolkien-esque too, the heroic quest is great. The exact tech level can be lower than full-plate but by the time you're getting into guns it's a little far but I can still dig it.

I'm interested in Eberron and would like to see what the setting could do when well run but dungeon-punk is not my favorite.

Dark Sun has always seemed a really interesting setting in my opinion, but it's something to try, traditional fantasy is always going to be something to keep coming back to.

[lightningcat]

There are a lot of settings out there that I would neither run nor care much to play in, but I'll still pick them up to read. Very rarely do i put down a fantasy setting based on pictures, but if they are trying to take chainmail bakinis seriously, then I get leary of it quickly. No, what kills my interest more than anything else is when the editing is so poor that you stop reading and start counting mistakes, or when the writing is so poor you get a headache from trying to read it.

[Vantharion]

Fantasy for me:

Magic exists, it's in relatively limited quantities.

Society is bordering collapse, has collapsed, or is minuscule

There are great things going on far away

There is the existence of differing races from generic DnD or at least unique interpretations of them; Dragon Age reinterpreted dwarves and elves effectively in my mind. These races can even be unique as per Mass Effect. Each race in ME comments on a part of human culture, whether it be our lifespan, value of blood heritage, or struggles to survive.

There is the potential to rise to greatness. Much unlike the real world, fame and glory is but a step away and you can stumble towards success.

Beyond that I'm 'The Time Traveller' archetype I'd say, I love exploring a weird world (H.G. Wells, Doctor Who, Etc) and discovering things. Steampunk appeals to me strongly in this regard: Abney Park - All the Myths Are True (Youtube)

Also, I highly recommend the Dragon Age novels by David Gaider, they were very well written.

[Awnetu]

I'm working on an rpg, and I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on how "Fantasy Setting" is defined.

Lets say you are at your FLGS, you notice a new core rulebook on the shelf for some RPG you've never heard of. You start flipping through it.

Are there things that if you saw in a picture would make you close the book, put it back on the shelf and walk away without reading it anymore?
Steampunk-ish artifice?
Psionics?
Robotic characters ala warforged?
Guns?
Anything else?


Thanks for your input!

Gunblades.

Also what Lightningcat said, I don't like books where I'm constantly noticing errors, they become too distracting to play with.

[FMArthur]

The criteria I go by for fantasy is "anything you want it to be". It's practically the definition of fantasy. I'd close the book if it were "erotic fantasy", which isn't really what I'd want, but pretty much everything else I would keep looking at.

[Satyr]

I'm working on an rpg, and I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on how "Fantasy Setting" is defined.

A fantasy setting is a fictional setting with supernatural elements which usually cannot be explained with technology again. Most of the time, the described society and places are entirely fictional, but there is a sliding scale between fantasy or speculative fiction with fantasy elements; this may also depend on the genre (many horror games depend on supernatural elements as well, but with a different focus on their representation).

Are there things that if you saw in a picture would make you close the book, put it back on the shelf and walk away without reading it anymore?
Steampunk-ish artifice?
Psionics?
Robotic characters ala warforged?
Guns?
Anything else?

I personally don't like steampunk much (it's technology, not magic, so it better works in line with the usual rules for technology, like those pesky laws of thermodynamics). I don't think that there is a large difference between psionics and magic to begin with, apart from the terminology.

The reason I would lose any interest in a fantasy setting is when I think that it does not follow an inner logic or plausibility and is basically a kitchen sink of all kinds of ideas (hello Forgotten Realms); it doesn't matter how weird the ideas in a setting are, as long as they are consistent and work within a certain inner plausibility. Oh, and I don't like "comedic" settings. If I don't have the impression that the game takes itself serious, why should I bother to do it?

[Ponderthought]

I love nice original settings, things that feel like the creator poured a great deal of energy and love into it. Ex: Greyhawk bores me, because it seems to lack any soul of its own. It always seems to be trying to reach the broadest audience. On the other hand something like Ebberon can really grab you, make you go "Hmmm..now thats different."

The other thing that gets me is when a traditional trope of fantasy is turned over and kicked in the ass. Elves are baaaad. Magic has a price. Things are based on Renaissance Italy rather than medieval britain. A setting that takes a "what if" and runs with it well almost always captures my attention.

And theres a conditional love of steampunk..it has to stay victorian. its just a thing with me.

My setting turn-offs mostly concern elves, and how wonderful they are, and how no one would ever think of collecting the tips of their ears.

[Aroka]

Are there things that if you saw in a picture would make you close the book, put it back on the shelf and walk away without reading it anymore?

No.

I'm working on an rpg, and I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on how "Fantasy Setting" is defined.

Fantasy is fiction that is not some other genre of fiction (such as SF, historical, horror, mystery, etc.).

Therefore, a fantasy setting is a setting that is not some other setting (such as SF, space opera, western, horror, historical).

There is obvious overlap between such genres; just like you can have western horror, you can have historical fantasy.

This more or less rules out being set in real history, modern day, or the future of Earth, excepting elements that radically depart from those other settings (such as magic).


Pro-tip: Focus on creating something interesting instead of trying to define a term as ridiculously broad as "fantasy setting."

[Nero24200]

I'd have to say pure tolkenism would make me put a book down faster than others, but even then if the games good I might not. I don't really see anything I wouldn't consider fantasy (such as psionics or steampunk elements) since the whole point of a fantasy game is well....just that, it's fantasy. I

actually find it quite silly when people say things like "It's not a proper fantasy setting if it has psychic powers" or "It has giant robots, that's not fantasy". The whole point of a fantasy game is to play a game in a setting with things that don't exist in real life - so if it does that how can it not be?

[Dr.Epic]

let's see

based around Europe in the Dark Ages
mythical beasts
magic
alchemy wouldn't be bad but no sci fi or steam punk (you hear me Final Fantasy )

[arrowhen]

I'll stop reading if I see a huge timeline. If I'm going to read a history book, I'll read a *real* one, not an RPG.

Instead, show me some of the awesome things I can do in your world, the places I can explore, the conflicts I can get caught up in.

[Aroka]

based around Europe in the Dark Ages
mythical beasts
magic

A definition of "fantasy setting" that excludes, say, Rokugan, is obviously nonsensical. (Of course, your definition also excludes all published D&D settings, so maybe that's intentional.)

Or were you listing things that'd make you stop reading? (It's a bit tricky to read this thread when the title of the thread is one question, the OP actually asks a completely different question, and people answer one without specifying which.)

[Maho-Tsukai]

With me fantasy itself is a large lable that encompases many different sub genras. Fantasy can be a typical heroic swords and sorcerery world or can be the magi-tech filled world with spaceships and mecha and computers alongside elves and dragons. Fantasy itself can be any of those things, and to me some things which call themselves "si-fi" are actually fantasy.

You see, Si-Fi I define as being a fictional story which actually COULD happen in RL in some distant time or place. Si-Fi is in that sens specutaltive, since it's a story speculating about something that is not part of our standard reality on earth as if it where a part of RL. Thus, to be "si-fi" a story must have some degree of scientific fact to back up it's speculation.

Fantasy is like si-fi in a way. It too has elements which are non-exsistant in the real world. However, unlike si-fi it dose not use these settings as ways to speculate about what such places and things would actually be like in RL. Nor dose it have to use any kind of hard scientific facts to back up it's claims. Thus, a fantasy story at it's heart is any fictional story with elements that are not a part of our normal reality here on earth that is not si-fi.

Thus, things like "star-wars" are more fantasy in my view then si-fi, since they do little explaining of their out of this world elements.

So, to me a high tech world with spaceships and laser guns that happens to have a lot of technology that is impossible to explain via science is just as much a fantasy world as one with elves and dragons and wizards.

[Thrawn4]

- Every generic fantasy setting with the stereotypes: humans know nothing, elves are superior in every way, dwarves like gold and beer.
- Logic errors. As in wizards can do anything evertime, but for some reason, the world is still the same.

Eragon would make for a good example. I mean, I read the books when I was really really bored, but it's just not original.

[Xallace]

As far as I'm concerned, the difference between fantasy and science fiction is in the number of rivets on the cover.

Tolkien's way of doing things has its charm, but over-exposure has left me mostly bored. Sure, sometimes I want to go back to that fantastical simplicity of tropes, and when I do it's wonderful to have the resources.

I've picked up a leafed through dozens of RPG books. Its what's on the inside the counts. If you make a coherent and interesting game out of, say, wizards piloting giant robots through a world based on The Nightmare Before Christmas, I doubt I'd much care what was on the front. You could put some Microsoft PowerPoint clip-art on the front for all it matters.

[Noircat]

Personally, what I would like to see in a game setting?

Very low arcane magic, low primal magic setting. 4e mechanics wise = you can only crossclass arcane or primal.
No divine or psionics power sources. Just the way I feel. Different strokes for different folks.

Low power. NPCs that are in combat without being useless or more powerful than PCs. In dnd this would be E6. Level limit 6 for PCs.

Gunpowder. Guns without rifling(justify a lack of super accuracy and the beginnings of broken gameplay). Cannons. Destructable terrain and walls.

Really, and more than all of this above. Is roleplaying that heavily effects the outcome of a situation and is fun for its own sake without being rushed. Can possibly be achieved by having heroes stuck in a small area surrounded by massive mountains. Plot nonessential characters who are fun to roleplay with, often trying to sell off oddball things to "rich adventurers" like perfume or an experimental parachute or a wheelchair that has nothing to do with what happens to the PCs next. Characters with families are also good.

Freeform is delicious.

[Anima]

I like the following definition:

1. The Story is set on a different world.
2. Older means better

It works surprisingly well, though a lot of modern stories blur the lines quite a bit. Things like historical fantasy are categorized under Supernatural.
The fell of the story is also important, science fiction is more about making the reader/player feel like he is in a futuristic world. Even if application are functionally magic, as long as they feel technological they get accepted.
That's why we got the lovely genre of science fantasy, a fantasy setting that makes us feel like we are in science fiction setting. Can be really fun, if you can resist poking to many holes in the illusion.

To answer the OPs second question, mecha and grimdark would make me turn a book down. I seriously dislike dark settings, hating them wouldn't be that for of. Giants Robots on the other work strictly by the "Rule of cool", they are just not cool for me.
I'm not a huge fan of steampunk, but if the story/game is good, that's cool with me. Guns are a problem, insofar as they violate the second tenet of fantasy, though I don't have a problem with them.
Psionics are a different problem, one of terminology. It's a term of the supernatural genre, so it feels artificial. The concept itself is no problem in fantasy settings, the feel matters though.

[eepop]

Thanks for the input everyone. Its been very helpful.

And sorry for the dissonance between the title and the post, I couldn't think of a way to summarize the post in the title with the same connotation. The best I could get was "What makes you close a book?" and then I was afraid of a hundred replies of "My hands!"

[BillyJimBoBob]

I'm working on an rpg, and I was wondering what everyone's feelings were on how "Fantasy Setting" is defined.

I'm a traditionalist. I prefer my fantasy sans midi-chlorians which ruin the fantasy feel of a setting.

That said, guns are ok as long as they are not combined with mass production. A setting where guns are mistrusted and a bow or a crossbow is most person's option is by far my preference. Perhaps the Dwarves or Gnomes have some skill with guns which has not yet made it into Human cultures.

Robots and the rest you mentioned? Not so much. Those are harder to accept as a fledgling technology which is still not widely known or accepted. I also do not care for the various incarnations of Tippy's world, where magic takes the place of technology and the logical outcomes of this are explored. Magic is not science, you can not perform the same steps twice and expect the same results. Thus ends Tippy's thought experiment.

[Mr.Moron]

I can't think of any elements that would be able to turn me off a "Fantasy" setting that wouldn't turn me off any other setting. For me, all fantasy requires is magic and some variety of intelligent life that isn't human. Whatever you want to add on top of that is just fine.

[Xuc Xac]

I like Tolkien-esque too, the heroic quest is great. The exact tech level can be lower than full-plate but by the time you're getting into guns it's a little far but I can still dig it.

I like the following definition:

1. The Story is set on a different world.
2. Older means better

Guns are a problem, insofar as they violate the second tenet of fantasy, though I don't have a problem with them.

Guns on the battlefield predate two-handed swords and full-plate armor by at least three or four centuries. Even in legends, there were guns. Mordred used thundering cannon when he laid siege to Camelot. Guns are still in use today but they aren't a new invention. They just lasted longer than other weapons that were developed later.

For the OP, the thing that turns me off a fantasy setting is inconsistency. If one of your kingdoms has a big powerful navy, there needs to be someplace for them to sail to. If the entire known world is one massive continent, where are those ships going? I also hate too many zeros. No human kingdom is going to exist unchanged for 1000 years and no city with a medieval level of technology is going to have a population of 20,000,000.

[hamishspence]

Magic is not science, you can not perform the same steps twice and expect the same results.

This may depend on the setting. Even quite fantastical settings can have consistant magic.

If one of your kingdoms has a big powerful navy, there needs to be someplace for them to sail to. If the entire known world is one massive continent, where are those ships going?

To other parts of the continent that are difficult to access by land- due to deserts, mountain ranges, hostile kingdoms, etc.