Mundane vs. Fantastical

More Elric, Conan and Ffarhd please, less being mauled in the woods by common animals while you take a leak.

Um ... you might want to check your sources. Conan particularly (at least as written by REH) fought mostly beasts and men, with the occasional otherworldly horror. He's the epitome of the low-fantasy model that you've just decried.

Fafhrd slightly less so -- when he fights wolves, they're ghosts, but they're still, er, "mundane" ghosts.

I haven't read enough Elric to know how he fares on the fantasticometer either way. But my point is, if you want more fantasy in your fantasy, you don't want more Conan and Fafhrd.

-The Gneech :cool:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I felt the way the OP did when playing earlier editions, I was careful to husband the occurrence of magical beasts and aberrations, I used a lot of humanoids, specifically whatever I had decided lived in that part of the world.

With 4e I decided just to cut loose, there were drakes instead of ravens, kobolds had more than one caster per tribe, their is a unicorn in the Inn stable. The chickens ARE blessed by a god. Its not just a story from far off parts, that turns out to be exaggerated its actually happening.

Simulation bows out to the game.
Can this be sustained? Is a world that ignores certain logical details more fun? I'm not sure, thats why my group is calling it a test campaign.

Besides how often would a bear attack a well armed and armored group of men? How many wolf attacks involved a group of healthy humans?
 

So has D&D drifted too far from mundane into fantastical? Is it a bad thing? Can a balance between truly magical and fantastical elements (warlocks, demons, potions of fire-breath) be struck with historical or mundane elements (grizzly bears, fighters, bec-de-corbins?) without one or the other suffering?

This has been a significant element of my dissatisfaction with 4e from the day I paged through the 4e Monster Manual. Too much way out stuff and not enough bread-and-butter critters to challenge a lower level party or for a more mundane game.
And even in 3e, i generally do what I can to keep to a more mundane game. The PCs encounter animals quite often that I try to have react in a natural and realistic manner. My primary opponents are more likely to be humanoids with levels than peculiar monsters.
 

I think people have really, really lost track of how fantastical the 'mundane' can actually be. A fight with a bear could be very exciting IMO. I remember the first time I read Lord of the rings, how terrific the battle with a few orcs and and ogre was in the Mines of Moria. To me that was the archetypal dungeon adventure. And yet today that wouldn't rate as anything but a minor encounter to snag a few XP.

I think about the classic fantasy books I read like the original conan, fafhred and gray mouser, cugel the clever, they were actually very grounded in history and mythology. They were essentially low fantasy books in which the magic stood out vividly against a background something like a hard bitten detective novel, realistic and gritty.

Like somebody else said, when dinner is cake and icecream desert just doesn't seem as special.

I believe the general escalation of fantastic themes into the hyper realm, though it works for some people and can probably be done well, to me represents a failure of the imagination.
 

I felt the way the OP did when playing earlier editions, I was careful to husband the occurrence of magical beasts and aberrations, I used a lot of humanoids, specifically whatever I had decided lived in that part of the world.

With 4e I decided just to cut loose, there were drakes instead of ravens, kobolds had more than one caster per tribe, their is a unicorn in the Inn stable. The chickens ARE blessed by a god. Its not just a story from far off parts, that turns out to be exaggerated its actually happening.

Simulation bows out to the game.
Can this be sustained? Is a world that ignores certain logical details more fun? I'm not sure, thats why my group is calling it a test campaign.

Besides how often would a bear attack a well armed and armored group of men? How many wolf attacks involved a group of healthy humans?

See... sometimes our assumptions about "mundane" reality fall way short of how crazy it can actually get.

You might find this interesting

Wolf of Soissons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first victims of the wolf were a pregnant woman and her unborn child, attacked in the parish of Septmont on the last day of February. Diligent locals had taken the infant, a scant four or five months old, from the womb to be baptized before it died when the wolf struck again not three hundred yards from the scene of the first attack. One Madame d'Amberief and her son survived only by fighting together.
On 1 March near the hamlet of Courcelles a man was attacked by the wolf and survived with head wounds. The next victims were two young boys, named Boucher and Maréchal, who were savaged on the road to Paris, both badly wounded. A farmer on horseback lost part of his face to the wolf before escaping to a local mill, where a boy of seventeen was caught unawares and slain. After these atrocities the wolf fled to Bazoches, where it partially decapitated a woman and severely wounded a girl, who ran screaming to the village for help. Four citizens of Bazoches set an ambush at the body of the latest victim, but when the wolf returned it proved too much for them and the villagers soon found themselves fighting for their lives. The arrival of more peasants from the village finally put the wolf to flight, chasing it into a courtyard where it fought with a chained dog. When the chain broke the wolf was pursued through a pasture, where it killed a number of sheep, and into a stable, where a servant and cattle were mutilated.
The episode ended when one Antoine Saverelle, former member of the local militia, tracked the wolf to small lane armed with a pitchfork. The wolf sprang at him but he managed to pin its head to the ground with the instrument, holding it down for roughly fifteen minutes before an armed peasant came to his aid and killed the animal. Saverelle received a reward of three-hundred livres from Louis XV of France for his bravery.

and these:

And tell me THIS story wouldn't make a great DnD (Cthulhu Dark Ages) campaign:

Peter Stumpp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Don't forget the bears!

List of fatal bear attacks in North America by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

And the film, The Ghost and the Darkness was based off a real incident: Tsavo maneaters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crocs: Crocodile attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Crocodiles can slow their metabolism to such an extent that a tree with an intruder hiding in its branches may be guarded continuously for several weeks, without breaks for food. :eek: )

Of some use: Category:Deaths due to animal attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RC
 
Last edited:


Hunh. Glad to know I'm not the only one to feel that way. I've always been about the Grim and Gritty fantasy, and that's been my comfort area. But, with 4e, I said "you know what? I'm going to run it as-written, and see what happens." And, even though it's a different fantasy than I'm used to, I like it.

So far, in my campaign (I run two different groups in a shared locale), we've seen:

* Goblins invading a town (fairly low key), the town being the hub of numerous races trading and celebrating a town's centennial (also low-key, but more Tolkien than Howard).
* An eruption of demons, forcing much of the populace to live in orc-infested islands (a background event, but a fairly mid fantasy event)
* Phantasmal Orcs reliving an eternal battle against teleporting Eladrin (fairly high fantasy)
* A room that shifts between the mortal realm and the feywild at random, against the spiritual remains of a once-proud Eladrin Lordling, now a screaming wraith protected by his skeleton children (high fantasy, but not gonzo)
* A lizardfolk Spellmage with an aura of cold magic that can channel latent magical energy around him (about as high fantasy/video game as I've come, so far).

Those all spring into mind, and I don't think any of them really break character for my setting. Really, I'm followign the book, and I don't truly find it too crazy in magic content.
 

I think a lot of it, in terms of not... Low Fantasy vs. High Fantasy but simply "Mundane and Fantastical" depends a fair bit on how you approach it.

You can have a setting that has lots of fantastical elements. BUT! The way both the players and the DM approaches it, it can feel much more mundane and almost real-lifesque.

If you emphasize, that it is a "half-demon spirit posessed minotaur" then it will be more fantastical. If you emphasize its sickly form, how it grunts, squeals, etc. and make it more seem like a real beast it feels more mundance.
 

I came late to reading the Conan stories. Read my first one just a few years ago.

One thing that really stood out to me was how Howard generally limited himself to one supernatural element per story. Which really showcased that one element.

I have also found that, in role-playing games, it helps for the game world to be as similar to the players’ world as possible. It (generally) means less confusion and more time to focus on the adventure.

That said, one of my favorite campaigns was a gonzo, the-fantastic-everywhere-you-look sort of thing. That can have it’s appeal too.

I agree with those who say there is no right or wrong in this matter.

One thing I always prefer to avoid, however, is systemizing the fantastic elements to the extent that they become mundane with a fantastic façade. This can be a hard thing to guard against in role-playing games.
 

Remove ads

Top